M.S. KARNIK, J.

Rule. Rule heard forthwith by consent of parties.

2. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner – State of Maharashtra is to an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) in O.A. No. 919 of 2016. The Tribunal interfered with the order of suspension dated 2/9/2016 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent within a period of four weeks and give him an appropriate posting in the post of Superintendent of Jails or equivalent post.

3. The facts in a nutshell are thus :-

The petitioner was posted as Superintendent of Jails, Central Jail, Thane. One lady employee subordinate to the petitioner, made a complaint against him levelling allegations of sexual harassment. The complaint was initially made to the petitioner No.3 who at that relevant point of time was DIG, Prisons at Pune. Thereafter, the order of suspension dated 2/9/2016 was issued against the respondent by petitioner No.2. The order of suspension was passed under provisions of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter called as “D & A Rules”).