MADHUKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is employed with respondent Nos. 2 and 3. On or about 15th June, 2015, the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 21.05.2015. The petitioner had assailed the order of suspension.

(3.) The gravamen of the contention of Mr Dixit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have been suspended with the retrospective effect. The order could not have been passed suspending the petitioner with retrospective effect. The permission of the Education Officer has not been obtained while suspending the petitioner. The learned Counsel further submits that even otherwise, as per Rule 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, the suspension cannot be for more than 120 days. According to the learned Counsel, on lapse of 120 days, the petitioner would be deemed to have rejoined the duties. The petitioner on number of occasions, gave application to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow him to join his duty, but to no avail. The respondents ignored the request of the petitioner made from time to time.