Petitioner sought direction to hold departmental inquiry and compensation for alleged illegal suspension in April 2014, which was issued in February 2007. Court found no merit due to lack of merit in suspension challenge and limitation bar for monetary relief.
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.
wp3282-14
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 3282 OF 2014 Shri Sundarlal Munnilal Gujar
Vrs.
The Managing Director, M.S.E.D.C.L., Mumbai and 3 others.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Mrs. Sonali Saware, counsel for the petitioner.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND P.R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER , 2014
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to hold departmental inquiry against the respondent no. 4 for illegally suspending the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent no. 4 to pay compensation to the petitioner as he is personally liable for the illegal suspension of the petitioner.
The petitioner was suspended from service by the Superintending Engineer by an order dated 27.2.2007. The order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3388/2007. By an order dated 26.11.2007, this court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the respondents to complete the departmental inquiry on merits. The court did not quash and set aside the order of suspension dated 27.2.2007.
wp3282-14
2
Thereafter, another writ petition bearing W.P.No. 5015/2013 was filed by the petitioner for a direction to the other respondents to take action against the respondent no.4. The said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. The present petition is filed seeking the aforesaid relief.
None of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the instant petition could be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is holding the respondent no. 4 responsible for the alleged illegal suspension of the petitioner. It is already recorded herein above that the suspension of the petitioner, though challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3388/2007 was not set aside by this court. This court has also not held that the suspension order was illegal. Admittedly, the order of suspension is passed on 27.2.2007 and the petitioner has filed the instant petition for seeking a direction to the respondent no. 4 to pay compensation to the petitioner for passing the illegal order of suspension. A claim for monetary relief could be made within a period of three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. In the instant case, the suspension order was issued in February, 2007 and the petition seeking compensation from the respondent no. 4 is filed on 31.1.2014. Even otherwise, it would not be possible for this court to hold that the respondent no. 4 is personally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner as the
wp3282-14
3
said fact is liable to be proved in a civil court after permitting the parties to tender evidence. Also, as already stated herein above, the claim for monetary relief could be made only within a period of three years. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for holding a departmental inquiry and compensation for the alleged illegal suspension.
Whether the claim for compensation is barred by limitation.
Whether the respondent no. 4 is personally liable to pay compensation for an administrative order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Sundarlal Munnilal Gujar
The Managing Director, M.S.E.D.C.L., Mumbai
Other 2 respondents
Respondent no. 4
Vasanti A. Naik
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
