Vijay S/O. Vasudevrao Shende vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5209 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-3366-15.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 3366 OF 2015

 Vijay s/o Vasudevrao Shende,
 Aged about : 49 years,
 Resident of Tilak Nagar,
 Bramhpuri, District-Chandrapur.                                  ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1. State of Maharashtra,
    Department of Urban Development,
    Through its Principal Secretary,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

 2. The Municipal Council,
    Bramhpuri, through its Chief Officer,
    At/PO : Bramhpuri, District-Chandrapur.

 3. Shri Rajiv Ambikar,
    Desk Officer,
    Department of Urban Development,
    State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
    Mumbai - 32.                                                  ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Mrs. Mrunal Naik, AGP for the respondent No.1.
 Shri R. J. Kankale, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                 ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

28/07/2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order

of the respondent - Municipal Council, dated 25/02/2015 dismissing

the petitioner from service.

2 J-WP-3366-15.odt

The petitioner was appointed as Municipal Engineer by

the respondent - Municipal Council. The petitioner was prosecuted by

the Criminal Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After

the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court, the respondent -

Municipal Council has dismissed the petitioner from service, the

petitioner has challenged the dismissal order.

Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that since in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of

conviction, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was suspended,

the respondent - Municipal Council was not justified in dismissing the

petitioner from service.

We do not find that the order of dismissal could be set

aside only because in the criminal appeal, the sentence is suspended.

The petitioner is free to take appropriate steps for seeking his

reinstatement in service if the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal

appeal.

The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to

costs. The other points raised in the petition are kept open.

                      JUDGE                                         JUDGE




 Choulwar