Disposed

Sunil S/O Vitthalrao Kodape v. Principal, Shri Bhaiyaji Pandharipande National Institute of Social Work, Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC25 Sept 2014WP/1104/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged suspension order citing incomplete enquiry and lack of subsistence allowance. Court noted subsequent suspension revocation and disputed payment status, disposing of petition with no order as to costs while noting future entitlements.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs. No substantive relief granted.

Sunil S/O Vitthalrao Kodape Vs Principal, Shri… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1104-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1104/2014

¶5

(SUNIL VITTHALRAO KODAPE VERSUS PRINCIPAL, SHRI BHAIYAJI PANDHARIPANDE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WORK, NAGPUR & ANOTHER)

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Shri I.G. Meshram, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.D. Meghe, counsel for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶11

P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 25, 2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the suspension order issued by the respondent no.1, dated 03.07.2013 on the ground that the enquiry was not completed by the respondent no.1 within a reasonable time and the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance.

¶14

Shri Meghe, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, states on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.1, that the suspension order dated 03.07.2013 was revoked on 04.03.2014 and the respondent no.1 has paid the entire amount payable to the petitioner towards the subsistence allowance.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the statement in regard to the payment of the entire subsistence allowance by the respondent no.1 and states that the petitioner is paid only 50% subsistence allowance and not a higher subsistence allowance, though the enquiry was not completed within a period of three months.

¶16

WP1104-14

¶17

¶18

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the grievance of the petitioner would stand substantially redressed in view of the revocation of the order of suspension by an order dated 04.03.2014. There is a serious dispute in regard to the payment of the amount towards the subsistence allowance. According to the petitioner, some lesser amount is paid, whereas according to the respondent no.1, the entire amount is paid.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶20

In case, the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry and the charges are not proved, the petitioner would be entitled for the entire salary for the period during which he was suspended. If the petitioner is not exonerated and a penalty is imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner could as well raise the issue of nonpayment of the entire subsistence allowance while challenging the adverse order, if any.

¶21

Order accordingly.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

APTE

Sunil S/O Vitthalrao Kodape v. Principal, Shri Bhaiyaji Pandharipande National Institute of Social Work, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil S/O Vitthalrao Kodape v. Principal, Shri Bhaiyaji Pandharipande National Institute of Social Work, Nagpur and Another

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

Mah. Public Service Commission Thr. Its Secty., Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Bharat S/O Dattatraya Jog Vs State Bank of India, Bharat Nagar, Nagpur and 2 Others

Salim Maniyar Yasin Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Mumbai and 6 Others

Vyankatesh Gulabrao Deshmukh Vs Additional Commissioner,Amravati Division and 2 Ors.

Smt. Nanda Wd/O Shivkumar Manchalwar Vs Shiv Vidya Shikshan Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, through Its President, Nagpur and 3 Others

Sanskar Shikshan Mandal, through Its President, Shri Sharad Atmaram Kathwate Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and 2 Others