The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a suspension order in a departmental inquiry. The court directed the inquiry to be finalized within four weeks while keeping merit-based contentions open.
Inquiry must be finished within four weeks from the date of this order.
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, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 1712 of 2013
Dr. Neeraj s/o. Annasaheb Salunkhe, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Associate Professor, R/o. "Videh", H-17, Tirupati Supreme Enclave, Jalan Nagar, Aurangabad, Taluka & District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.
versus
.. Respondents
(No.5 - Intervener)
(2)
Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.
Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4.
Mr. S.N. Pagare, Advocate, for respondent no.5 / Intervener.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER 2013
COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :
(3)
suspension pending departmental inquiry, when for alleged misconduct he is already punished once, is the question which needed consideration by Vice-Chancellor independently in his own wisdom and discretion. He is relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. State of U.P. and others [(2007) 5 SCC 85] . It is further contended that when the provisions of 1994 Act require suspension pending inquiry to be ordered in a particular mode and manner, it ought to have been done in that manner only. Otherwise, the exercise of power must fall to ground. Support is being taken from judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16(1)] .
(4)
placed it before the Registrar, and then it has gone to Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor has then accepted it. Perusal of note dated 20th February 2013 does not show that the Vice-Chancellor has acted only because of the resolution or recommendation of the Management Council.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE
bgp/wp1712
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a decision regarding suspension pending departmental inquiry should be taken independently by the Vice-Chancellor versus by the Management Council.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶22
(2007) 5 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas BhanjiReferred¶22
AIR 1952 SC 16(1) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Neeraj Salunkhe
The State of Maharashtra
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University
B.P. Dharmadhikari
Ravindra V. Ghuge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
