Dismissed

Vasant Ramkrishna Varape v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2009WP/1679/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging suspension orders. The court held that suspension was valid under Rule 3(a) as a departmental inquiry was pending and directed petitioners to cooperate for its expeditious conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs; directions were issued for petitioners to cooperate in the departmental inquiry.

Vasant Ramkrishna Varape Vs the State of Mah… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 WRIT PETITION NOS.1679/2009 & 1680/2009

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1679/2009

¶4

Vasant Ramkrishna Varape.
 ...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
 ...Respondents...

¶5

Shri B.A. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶6

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.1680/2009

¶8

Bappaswaheb Vinayakrao Dhavale.
 ..Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.
 ..Respondents..
.....

¶9

¶10

Shri B.A. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioner.

¶11

Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent no.1.

¶12

Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶13

CORAM: P.V. HARDAS &
 R.K. DESHPANDE,JJ.

¶14

 DATE: 25.06.2009

¶15

PER COURT:

¶16

1]Both these petitions can be decided by this common order. In both these
petitions, the petitioners, who are employees of the respondent – Zilla
Parishad, impugn the orders by which they were placed under suspension. Show
cause notices had been issued to the petitioners by the respondent – Zilla
Parishad calling upon the petitioners to explain as to why a departmental
action should not be initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners
submitted their reply and after considering the reply, the order impugned in
the present petitions came to be issued placing the petitioners under
suspension. An affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Zilla Parishad
clearly indicates that the departmental inquiry has been initiated against the
petitioners and the same can be concluded within six months, provided the
petitioners cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the inquiry.

¶17

2]The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged before us by placing
reliance on Section 3(a) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, that the impugned order of suspension
does not disclose that any departmental inquiry or action was contemplated
against the petitioners. Section 3(a) reads as follows:

¶18

¶19

“3(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is
contemplated or is pending,”

¶20

Perusal of the aforesaid section clearly reveals that authority is conferred
on the officers for placing any employee under suspension where a departmental
proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. In the present case,
the suspension was preceded by an issuance of show cause notice and ultimately
the petitioners were placed under suspension. Inquiry has been initiated
against them and the same is being concluded within six months.

¶21

3]It is also urged before us that the perusal of the allegations against
the petitioners does not disclose any misconduct on the part of the
petitioners. According to us, this is not a question, which can be gone into
in the exercise of writ jurisdiction particularly when the inquiry against the
petitioners is pending.

¶22

4]We accept the aforesaid statement of the respondents that the inquiry
would be completed within six months. We further direct the petitioners to
cooperate in the expeditious conduct of the inquiry against them.

¶23

5]We, thus, see no merit in the petitions and the same are dismissed with
no order as to costs.

¶24

(R.K. Deshpande,J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.)

¶25

ndk/c2560937

Vasant Ramkrishna Varape v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant Ramkrishna Varape v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Motiram Sambhaji Munde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gokul Uttam Sapkale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Narayan Sheshrao Bhendekar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prakash Ramchandra Dhande and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Savitribai Phule Mahila Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajaram Onkar Choudhari Vs the State of Mah and Ors.