(1) 25-WP-6553-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6553/2026 DILIP S/O SHAMRAO WAHOKAR VS THE ZILLA PARISHAD, AKOLA, THR. ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. T.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026. 1. On 25.08.2026, the following order was passed : “1. Heard. 2. The argument is that the issue involved is covered by the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 7 SCC 291. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the order dated 06.07.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1144 of 2026 (Ganesh S/o Sahebrao Payghan v. Zilla Parishad Buldhana & Anr.), wherein we had issued a show-cause notice as to why action should not be recommended against the respondents for failure to discharge duties in accordance with the settled law. 4. The counsel submits that subsequent to issuing the aforesaid order, the respondents therein have withdrawn the order of suspension, and therefore, no further action was taken. 5. In the present case, also, we would like to know from the respondents as to how the order of suspension can be continued despite the position of law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Anr. (supra). 6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 02.09.2026. 7. In addition to the usual mode of service, the petitioner shall serve the respondents by all permissible modes, including service by e-mail and Speed Post A/d, and shall file an affidavit of service.” 2. In response, the counsel for the respondents submits that the order of suspension has been withdrawn and the petitioner has been reinstated in service. Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11951-DB (2) 25-WP-6553-2026 3. Copy of order has been served upon the petitioner’s counsel. 4. The petitioner is satisfied with the development. 5. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of as purpose of filing petition is served. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya