SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.

1. The Petitioner is working on the post of “Assistant Teacher” in the Primary School run by Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. A notice dated 28th June, 2016 (Exhibit G) was issued to her alleging therein that she had acted in violation of Rule 3 and 19 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Conduct) Rules, 1967 (for short “Rules of 1967”) asking her to show cause as to why she be not suspended and departmental inquiry be not initiated against her.

2. The Petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause notice on 2nd July, 2016 (Exhibit H). After considering the reply, the Respondent-Zilla Parishad passed an order dated 30th August, 2016 (Exhibit I) by which the Petitioner has been put to suspension. Feeling aggrieved by the order of her suspension the Petitioner has filed this Petition.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that while passing the impugned suspension order, there is gross violation of the Rule 3 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short “Rules of 1964”). It is stated that in the impugned order there is no mention that disciplinary proceeding is contemplated and is pending against the Petitioner and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It is further stated that the allegations levelled in the show cause notice and the impugned suspension order are false and fabricated and are made only to harass the Petitioner on account of political pressure of local politicians at the instance of one Mr. Devekar.

4. On the other hand, Respondent-Zilla Parishad has supported the impugned order. It has been stated that the action of suspension which has been taken against the Petitioner is in conformity of Rule 3 of Rules 1964. According to the Respondents a close reading of the notice as also the suspension order would clearly indicate that for the various allegations mentioned therein, a departmental inquiry against the Petitioner was in contemplation. It is also stated that recently in November, 2016, charge-sheet has also been issued against the petitioner.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The controversy in the matter revolves around Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 which deals with the powers of suspension. It reads as under:

3. Suspension : The Appointing Authority or any other Officer of the Zilla Parishad to whom such Appointing Authority is subordinate or any other officer of the Zilla Parishad empowered by the Chief Executie Officer in that behalf may place a Parishad servant under suspension:

(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending;

(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial:

Provided that, where the orders of suspension are made by an authority lower in rank than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.

(2) A Parishad servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the Appointing Authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders.

(3) Whether a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Parishad servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or revision under these rules, and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on an from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders.

(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Parishad servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of, or by, decision of a Court of law and the Disciplinary Authority,