Bombay High Court
Nagnath Maloji Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1 wp7366.19 Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
962 WRIT PETITION NO.7366 OF 2019
Nagnath S/o Maloji Shinde
Age; 46 years, Occ; Service as a
Block Education Officer,
R/o; Beed Road, Shivajinagar,
Behind Marathi School,
Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed,
District; Ahmednagar. ...Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik, Division, Nashik.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
4. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. ...Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Maniyar Irfan D.
AGP for Respondents-State : Mrs. V.N.Patil (Jadhav)
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mrs. Manjushri Shendage-
Narwade
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 21.09.2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER - SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
2 wp7366.19 Judgment.odt
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at
the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order
dated 5.04.2011 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, in
which the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative
effect was imposed on him by order dated 11.11.2010. However, the
appellate authority allowed his appeal and set aside the penalty by its
order dated 24.02.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite
penalty being set aside, his suspension period from 26.06.2009 to
02.02.2010 has not been treated as duty.
3. Mrs. Shendage-Narwade, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the suspension order has not
been set aside by the appellate authority and the same would
continue to operate. She also submits that the petitioner is required
to file appeal against suspension order dated 05.04.2011 under the
provisions of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Discipline and appeal)
Rules 1964.
4. We find that both the objections are stated only to be
rejected. It is settled law that once an employee is exonerated in the
3 wp7366.19 Judgment.odt
disciplinary proceedings, during pendency of which he is placed
under suspension, the suspension period is required to be treated as
duty for all purposes. On account of the appellate authority setting
aside the penalty order, the petitioner is deemed to have been
exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the suspension
period is required to be treated as duty for all purposes.
5. Accordingly, we allow the petition. The suspension period from
26/06/2009 to 02/02/2010 is directed to be treated as duty for all
purposes. Consequential monetary benefits arising out of treatment
of suspension period as duty period be paid to the petitioner within
four weeks from today.
6. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL )
JUDGE JUDGE
mahajansb/
