(1) 27wp2566.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2566 OF 2026 Hamid Hussain Liyaquat Hussain VERSUS State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai 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. Zeeshan Z. Haq, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, A.G.P. for respondent-State. Mr. N. D. Sonare, Advocate instructed by Ms Roma P. Bondade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order of suspension dated 13.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 has been challenged on three counts. One is that the show cause notice was issued by the Block Education Officer and not by respondent No.2. Secondly, when the show cause notice was issued on 10.03.2026, calling upon the petitioner to file a reply, time to file a reply was not mentioned in the notice. The reply was accordingly filed on 16.03.2026. However, prior thereto i.e. on 13.03.2026, respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order suspending the services of the petitioner saying that the petitioner had furnished false information claiming himself to be guardian of his brother, though his parents were alive. 3. Argument is that in the absence of a specific time to furnish reply, the order of suspension ought not to have been passed without giving reasonable time and having done so, the order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The third reason is that the Government Resolution under question refers to the constitution of a committee headed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad to take a decision on the complaints (2) 27wp2566.26 in respect of transfers. The decision in the present case has been not taken by the committee. The order of suspension, therefore, will not stand the scrutiny of law. 5. We find the aforesaid three flaws to be fundamental. There appears no reason why should respondent No.2 not issue show cause notice to the petitioner. Further, why should specific time be not prescribed to furnish a reply. Thirdly, why should decision be not taken by the committee headed by respondent No.2. 6. The end result of these flaws is that the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right to put forth his case. It is a different matter whether after providing such an opportunity, respondent No.2 would maintain its stand that the petitioner has furnished misleading information and has thus committed misconduct. 7. The question here is of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also of following the policy decision taken by the Government. Failure at the hands of respondent No.2 to adhere to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 18.06.2026, will adversely affect the order of suspension issued against the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. Impugned order dated 13.03.2026 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 for consideration fresh, in accordance with law and what has been noted in the body of the order. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 at 11:00 a.m. on 31.08.2026. The petition is disposed of in terms of above with no order as to costs. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale Signed by: Kahale Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 25/08/2026 19:19:39