JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE A.P., J.:---Heard Shri Khapre, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Khubalkar, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2.Rule, By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.It is undisputed that the petitioner is a permanent employee working as Laboratory Assistant in the employment of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner is working as Laboratory Assistant in respondent No. 4 school, which is managed and administered by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner came to be arrested in connection with the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 142, 452, 322 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The victim, who was allegedly assaulted by the petitioner, and one more person died within a few days, and the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, was also registered, against the petitioner. The petitioner was detained in custody from 29-1-2002 to 3-2-2002 i.e. for a period of five days. He came to be released from the detention on 3-2-2002. The Principal of the school issued a letter placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 12-2-2002 onwards. The said order of suspension was issued, as a result of the petitioners detention in custody for a period more than 48 hours. That at subsequent point of time i.e. on 24-4-2002 the School Management moved the Education Officer seeking approval for suspension of the petitioner. Before the Education Officer could grant approval, the said proposal was withdrawn and the suspension came to be revoked by the management with effect from 19-6-2002. The petitioner was allowed to resume his duties as and from 21-6-2002. Since then the petitioner continues to work as Laboratory Assistant. The grievance that is made by the petitioner is that under Rule 33(5) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules (for short M.E.P.S. Rules) deeming suspension, consequent upon the detention of a person in custody for more than 48 hours is limited to the period for which, the person is detained in police or judicial custody. 4.Shri Khapre, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Principal of the school, was not justified in placing the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 12-2-2002, and the school management is responsible for payment of subsistence allowance till the suspension order can be revoked. 4.Shri Khapre, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Principal of the school, was not justified in placing the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 12-2-2002, and the school management is responsible for payment of subsistence allowance till the suspension order can be revoked. The petitioner came to be reinstated in the service on 21-6-2002. He further makes a grievance that from 21-6-2002 till date the Education Officer is not releasing his salary even though the petitioner is actually working. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the suspension of the petitioner is not under Rule 33(1) read with Rule 35 of M.E.P.S. Rules, but the suspension is purported to have been made under Rule 33(5) of the Rules. 5.Shri Khapre, learned Counsel has pointed out by placing reliance on the judgment reported in 1982 Mh.L.J. Page 403 (Vanmala v. National Education Society)1, that before a person could be placed under suspension under Rule 33(1) read with Rule 35, pending departmental enquiry, approval from Education Officer is mandatory and failure to obtain approval vitiates the order of suspension. Relying on the pharasography used in Rule 33(5), it is submitted that the deeming suspension contemplated thereunder is limited to the period for which, an employee is detained in custody, and the suspension cannot be permitted to operate, once the employees is released from the custody. The said question of law is squarely covered by three judgments of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)457 (Dilip Venkatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others)2, 2000(4) Bom.C.R. 698 : 2000(3) All.M.R. 789 (Madhukar Namdeo Patil v. Chairman, Sudhagad Education Society and others and another)3, unreported judgment by Shri A.P. Shah R.K. Batta, JJ., dated 13-12-2002, in Writ Petition No. 4434/2002. In view of the settled legal position, the Counsel prays for allowing the writ petition. In view of the settled legal position, the Counsel prays for allowing the writ petition. 6.Shri Khubalkar, the learned A.G.P. appearing for State, on the other hand though admits the fact that, at no point of time, the suspension of the petitioner was approved by the Education Officer, submits that it was permissible for the Education Officer to direct that the salary payable to the petitioner ought to be kept in the joint account of school and Head Master, and only after termination of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the said amount ought to be released to the petitioner, in case the proceedings are terminated in acquittal. 7.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the management further submits that at no point of time, prior approval of Education Officer before suspension of the petitioner was obtained. As such the suspension subsequent to 3-2-2002 onwards is unsustainable in law. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner restricts his prayer and only seeks direction against the Education Officer for release of salary for the period from 21-6-2002 onwards. We see no reason not to grant the said prayer. The petitioner has given up the claim, for salary against the Management for the period commencing from 4-2-2002 to 20-6-2002. 8.The impugned decision of the Education Officer does not have any sanction of law, and as such needs to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we allow the writ petition and pass the following order:- ORDER The respondent No. 4 is directed to release the salary of the petitioner, which is kept in the joint account of the school and Head Master as per the direction issued by the Education Officer, for the period commencing from 21-6-2002 till date. The Education Officer is directed henceforth to approve the salary bills in regard to the salary payable to the petitioner and shall not refuse the same, for the reason of pendency of criminal proceedings, in the concerned offences referred to, in this petition and shall release the salary regularly. Rule is made absolute, in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----