The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the warrant of suspension of the petitioner in pending criminal and departmental proceedings, holding that Rule 14 does not provide an appeal against interim suspension. The court directed the Board to complete the enquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4136 OF 2004
Bapu Shankar Palekar .. Petitioner
Versus
Pune Cantonment Board .. Respondent
Mr.V.A.Gangal, Senior Counsel for petitioner
Mr.Presswala i/b. Mulla & Mulla CBC for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : A.P.SHAH AND
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
DATE : 4TH OCTOBER 2004.
P.C.
1. Heard Counsel for both sides.
2. Petitioner has been suspended in view of
pending criminal prosecution as well as the
departmental enquiry. The appeal preferred by
2
the petitioner under Rule 14 is clearly not
maintainable as Rule 14 provides an appeal only
against penalties specified in Rule 11 and not
against an interim suspension.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for Pune
Cantonment Board stated that the Board will
complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible
and in any event within a period of four months
from today.
3. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
*****
Bapu Shankar Palekar
Pune Cantonment Board
A.P.SHAH
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court