Allowed

Pratap Deva Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2012WP/540/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that maintaining the petitioner's suspension without work or change of posting is unreasonable when co-officers facing identical charges have been reinstated. The writ petition allowing revocation of suspension and directing a posting change was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Revocation of suspension and direction to post the petitioner at a place other than Jalna.

Pratap Deva Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2012 "Pratap Deva Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another."

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶5

¶6

Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 and 2

¶7

CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI &

¶8

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 14TH MARCH, 2012.

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶11

. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by his continuous suspension for a period of almost last 4 years.

¶12

2] It is the contention of the petitioner that for the same charges, the petitioner was suspended alongwith 5 other officers namely, Shri P.D. Chavan, Shri A.L. Deshmukh, Shri D.M. Sakhare, Shri Badar Siddiqui and Shri S.B. Santanse,

¶13

3] It is the contention of the petitioner that in so far as the other 5 officers are concerned, their suspension stands revoked on account of the order passed by either the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal or the Appellate Authority. It is, therefore,

¶14

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2012 "Pratap Deva Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another."

¶17

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶18

¶19

submitted that on the ground of parity also, the petitioner is entitled for revocation of suspension.

¶20

4] Shri K.G. Patil, AGP vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that charges against the petitioner and the charges against the other 5 officers are different. He submits that the petitioner is the main culprit and, therefore, his suspension should not be revoked. It is further submitted that the enquiry is at the fag end and, therefore, no interference is warranted.

¶21

5] Undisputedly, the allegations against the petitioner and the other 5 officers are pertaining to fabrication of record of the Taluka Inspector of Land Record. Perusal of the charges against the present petitioner and the other 5 officers would reveal that the nature of evidence against the present petitioner and that of the other 5 officers, is almost identical.

¶22

6] In any case, we find that by paying 75% of the salary by way of subsistence allowance, without undertaking any work from the petitioner, would not be in the interest of the public exchequer, particularly so, when the other 5 officers facing the same charges are already reinstated.

¶23

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2012 "Pratap Deva Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another."

¶26

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶27

¶28

7] In so far as the departmental proceedings is concerned, the petitioner can always be posted at some other place than Jalna, pertaining to which place, the charges are framed. In so far as the contention regarding the proceedings being at the fag end is concerned, Shri Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that 5 witnesses are yet to be examined and it will take considerable time. This position is not disputed by the learned AGP.

¶29

8] In the result, we are inclined to allow the petition. The respondents are directed to forthwith revoke the suspension of the petitioner. The respondents would be at liberty to post the petitioner at some other place than Jalna, so that, the petitioner does not influence the departmental proceedings. It is further directed that the petitioner shall cooperate with the disciplinary authority, in the conduct of the departmental proceedings.

¶30

9] Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs.

¶31

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]

¶32

grt/-

Pratap Deva Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Deva Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumant Achyut Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nilkantha Parappa Bhandare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sampatrao Bhanaji More and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Mahaveer Traders Nanded Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.