SUBHASH Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the nature of controversy, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission itself by consent of parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) HEARD Advocate Shri V.G. Wankhede for petitioner and Advocate Shri P.B. Patil for respondent No.1. Learned AGP appears for respondent No.2.

(3.) ADVOCATE Shri Wankhede has today filed an affidavit pointing out that as the wife of petitioner was unwell and petitioner has retired on superannuation in September 2003, he could not come to Nagpur and arrange to file petition. After considering the controversy on merits, I am inclined to accept said explanations. The appellate authority has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has, therefore, quashed and set aside the punishment of withholding his two increments imposed by respondent No.1. However, while so doing, it has maintained the order of suspension by observing only that the period of suspension needs to be treated as suspension only. It is apparent that this act is totally without jurisdiction. When, the petitioner has been found to be not guilty for misconduct, there was no question of suspending him and hence, the suspension imposed needs to be regularized as period spent on duty.