Bombay High Court
WP/8134/2026 of PRATIBHA W/O VIJAY BHANDE (KU. PRABHA R. DHORE) Vs THE STATE OF MAH. THR. SEC., EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPTT. MUMBAI AND ORS. on 12 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) 14 wp 8134-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 8134 OF 2026 Pratibha W/o Vijay Bhande (Ku. Prabha R. Dhore) VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for petitioner. Ms M.A. Barabde, AGP for respondent/State. Mr. Amol Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
CORAM :
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12.10.2026 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deshpande, who appears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. Learned Counsel for respondent points me out Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. By pointing me out Sub-rule 2 of Rule 12, it is the specific contention of Mr. Deshpande that there is no appeal provided against an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made by the Chief Executive Officer. By pointing me out the facts of the case, Mr. Deshpande would submit that admittedly in the present matter suspension order is challenged. The concerned employee has chosen to challenge the said order of suspension before the Divisional Commissioner, purportedly under Rule 21 of the Rules. He also draws my
(2) 14 wp 8134-2026 attention to Rule 21, which is titled as Consideration of Appeals and Revisions.
3. In my considered opinion, since there is a specific bar as engrafted under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 12, the Divisional Commissioner ought not to have entertained an appeal, albeit seeking the shelter of Rule 21 of the said Rule.
4. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the basic order of suspension, without challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner, since it is an order of authority which is not having the power to do so.
5. Leaving all the contentions of merits as far as order of suspension is concerned, the petition is disposed. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/10/2026 18:09:56