JUDGMENT : A.S. Chandurkar, J. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The question that arises in this writ petition is whether the order of suspension inflicted upon an employee pending enquiry proceedings could be treated to be an order of punishment by itself so as to disentitle the employer from imposing any punishment after conclusion of the enquiry proceedings? 3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the writ petition are that the respondent no.3 was appointed as a Clerk with the petitioner-Market Committee in the year 1986. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Accountant. During the course of employment on noticing certain irregularities the respondent no. 3 was placed under suspension by an order dated 15.10.2011. Thereafter enquiry proceedings were held and on that basis the punishment of removal from service came to be imposed by order dated 02.06.2012. The respondent no.3 filed an appeal under provisions of Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short, the said Rules). The Divisional Joint Registrar held that the respondent no.3 was suspended from service prior to the holding of the enquiry. This suspension continued for a long period. On that basis it was held that a further punishment of removal from service could not have been imposed. Hence the order of removal was set aside and the respondent no. 3 was directed to be reinstated in service. In further appeal filed before the State Government this order came to be confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 4. Shri. Anand Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies as well as the Hon'ble Minister who heard the appeal filed under Rule 104 of the said Rules were not justified in holding that the earlier order of suspension dated 15.10.2011 amounted to an punishment in itself due to which the order removing the respondent no.3 from service was held to be illegal. He submitted that the order of suspension clearly mentioned that the same was for the purposes of holding a departmental enquiry and it was not imposed by way of any punishment. Even if it was assumed that the order of suspension continued for a considerable period, the same would not amount to imposition of a punishment by itself. He submitted that the order of suspension clearly mentioned that the same was for the purposes of holding a departmental enquiry and it was not imposed by way of any punishment. Even if it was assumed that the order of suspension continued for a considerable period, the same would not amount to imposition of a punishment by itself. According to him under Rule 102(v) of the said Rules suspension in itself was a separate punishment and so was the order of removal. He then submitted that the services of the respondent no.3 were rightly terminated in view of serious irregularities committed by him during the course of service. He referred to the report of the Enquiry Officer and pointed out the gravity of charges against the respondent no.3. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside and the order of removal from service deserved to be maintained. 5. Shri. D.V. Siras, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 supported the impugned order. According to him both the Authorities were justified in holding that the suspension of respondent no.3 was by way of punishment and therefore there could not have been a subsequent order of removal from service by way of punishment. According to him the order of suspension of the respondent no.3 was for a period exceeding one month and it was contrary to the provisions of Rule 100(vi) of the said Rules. He, therefore, submitted that both the Authorities were justified in holding that as the respondent no.3 was under suspension for a considerable period, the further punishment of removal from service was not warranted. Shri. K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 also supported the impugned orders. 6. I have given due consideration to the respective submissions. The documents filed on record indicate that when the respondent no.3 was discharging duties on the post of Accountant, it was noticed by the petitioner that he had committed various financial irregularities. On that basis the Market Committee passed a Resolution on 27.8.2011 proposing to hold an enquiry against the respondent no.3 by keeping him under suspension. The order of suspension refers to the aforesaid fact and also refers to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer who was directed to complete his enquiry within a period of thirty days on the charges levelled against the respondent no.3. 7. The order of suspension refers to the aforesaid fact and also refers to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer who was directed to complete his enquiry within a period of thirty days on the charges levelled against the respondent no.3. 7. The power of an employer to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry cannot be doubted. The provisions of Rule 100(vi) of the said Rules contemplate that no person in service of the Market Committee can be suspended for a period exceeding one month without the previous approval of the Director or any Officer authorised by him. Rule 102 of the said Rules stipulates various penalties that can be imposed upon any officer or servant of the Market Committee. The penalties include withholding of increments or promotion, suspension, removal from service and dismissal from service. Under Rule 103 of the said Rules no employee can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without holding an enquiry. The penalty of suspension can be imposed by the Market Committee but for doing so holding of an enquiry under Rule 103(1) of the said Rules has not been contemplated. Only if the services of a person are to be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank that holding of an enquiry prior thereto is contemplated. If in the light of this position, the order of suspension dated 15.10.2011 is perused, it is clear that the same is an order of suspension pending holding of departmental enquiry. It is also undisputed that such departmental enquiry was held against the respondent no.3. Thus, this order of suspension pending enquiry cannot be read to be an order imposing penalty of suspension as contemplated by Rule 102(v) of the said Rules. 8. In the appeal filed by the respondent no. 3 challenging the order of dismissal from service the Divisional Joint Registrar has held that the respondent no.3 had been suspended by order dated 15.10.2011 and as he remained under suspension for almost seven and half months, that by itself was sufficient punishment. The said Authority further observed that in these facts a further punishment of removal from service was not warranted. The Market Committee in its appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Minister disputed this position and justified the order of removal. However, the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar came to be confirmed. The said Authority further observed that in these facts a further punishment of removal from service was not warranted. The Market Committee in its appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Minister disputed this position and justified the order of removal. However, the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar came to be confirmed. It is thus apparent that both the Authorities completely misdirected themselves by holding that the order of suspension pending departmental enquiry was itself by way of punishment and on that count set aside the order of removal. Merely because the respondent no.3 remained under suspension for a period of seven and half months which was contrary to the provisions of Rule 100(vi) of the said Rules as there was no prior approval of the Director or any officer authorised by him, the same cannot partake the character of an independent punishment by itself. The manner in which the period of suspension beyond the maximum period permissible was to be treated was a matter to be considered independently and in the light of the by-laws of the Market Committee. The same however cannot amount to a punishment by itself so as to preclude the Market Committee from imposing any punishment pursuant to the departmental enquiry. As it has been found that both the Authorities have considered the order of suspension pending enquiry as a punishment by itself which view has not been found to be correct, it would be necessary to direct the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Nagpur to reconsider the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 challenging the order of removal dated 02.06.2012 afresh and in the light of observations made in the judgment. In view of aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed: (i) The orders dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Nagpur as well as the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the State Government are set aside. (ii) The proceedings are remanded to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur for deciding the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 afresh and in the light of observations made in the order. (iii) The parties shall appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur on 19.07.2016. The said appeal be decided within a period of three months from said date. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs. Rule made absolute.