Disposed

Mr. a. P. Gurgule v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept

Bombay HC15 Sept 2014WP/8764/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged his continuous suspension exceeding three months without an enquiry. The court observed the State failed to review the suspension under 2011 Government Resolution and directed the State to complete the departmental enquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent-State to complete the departmental enquiry against the petitioner within three months from the date of receiving this order.

Mr. a. P. Gurgule Vs the State of Maharashtra, through… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

vrd 1 WP8764/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8764 OF 2013

Mr A.P. Gurgule v/s

State of Maharashtra

...Petitioner

...Respondent

Mr K.S. Bapat i/b Mr P.D. Paranjape for Petitioner. Mr Vishal Thadani, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.

¶11

DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER 2014.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Heard both the sides. The Petitioner, at the relevant

¶14

time, was working as Town Planner with the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. He was transferred to the Office of the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department, Gondiya. It is alleged that instead of taking charge at Gondiya, the Petitioner proceeded on leave on 19th October 2010. It is alleged that inspite of the issuance of transfer order and the Petitioner filing an application for leave, he attended the Office and granted

¶15

vrd 2 WP8764/13

¶16

permission in a case for construction of boundary wall.

¶17

Taking into consideration the conduct of the Petitioner,

¶18

by an order dated 15th January 2011, the then Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra suspended the Petitioner in exercise of powers under Rule 4(1) (A) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and appeal Rules 1979. Admittedly, since then, the Petitioner is under suspension.

¶19

The learned AGP, on instructions, submits that a charge-sheet has been served in the month of May 2014 on the Petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in

¶21

view of Government Resolution dated 14th October 2011 annexed to the reply filed by the State, within three months, the State ought to have taken review of the Suspension Order passed against the Petitioner. The said review has not been taken, neither any enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner. Keeping

¶22

vrd 3 WP8764/13

¶23

the Petitioner under continuous suspension is unreasonable act on the part of the Respondents. The Petitioner is prejudice due to the action of the Respondents.

¶24

The learned AGP submits that as charge-sheet is already served on the Petitioner, the Competent Officer / Committee would hold the enquiry now. In the facts of the case, it would not be appropriate to revoke the Suspension Order.

¶25

We have perused the record placed before us. In fact, in view of the policy adopted by the State by Government Resolution dated 14th October 2011, review of the Petitioner's Suspension Order ought to have been taken. It seems that the State has failed to take such a review. The Petitioner has been kept under suspension for unduly long time for more than three years. Without expressing any opinion on merits and the allegations made, we are of the view that the State ought to have completed the enquiry against the Petitioner when the chargesheet was served on the Petitioner in the Month of May 2014.

¶26

vrd 4 WP8764/13

¶27

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, instead of entertaining the plea of revocation of suspension, we deem it appropriate to direct the Respondent - State to complete the enquiry initiated against the Petitioner finally within the stipulated time-frame.

¶28

The Respondents to take appropriate steps to hold departmental enquiry already initiated against the Petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet served on the Petitioner and complete the same within three months from the date of receiving of this order. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the Enquiry Officer. Petition is disposed off.

¶29

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶30

( B.P. COLABAWALLA J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL J. )

Mr. a. P. Gurgule v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. a. P. Gurgule v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept

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

Pandurang Daji Dhundare Vs Shri.Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Dinkar Ganpat Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Finance Dept and Ors.

Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway and Ors. Vs Shri. Shylesha Mc.

Satish Kundanlal Agrawal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Ors.

Mr Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu Vs the Special Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Manisha Shankarrao Dhawle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.