Disposed

Prakash Venkatrao Padalwar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2015WP/1688/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Divisional Engineer, challenged his long-term suspension and arrest in a trap case involving Prevention of Corruption charges. The court directed the employer to complete the departmental enquiry within one month and continued the petitioner in service, disposing the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be continued in service and enquiry directed to be completed within one month.

Prakash Venkatrao Padalwar Vs Maharashtra State Road… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp1688.15.sxw

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1688 OF 2015

¶5

Prakash Venkatrao Padalwar ... Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & others ... Respondents

¶6

Ms. Vasundhara Rao i/b. Exponent Attorneys Law for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Hegde for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ .

¶8

13^th March, 2015.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. The petitioner was working as Divisional Engineer (Electrical). The

¶12

petitioner alongwith one Mr. Nagendra Devke was arrested on 26^th December, 2013 in a trap case and a crime was registered. The petitioner is in service of respondent no.1. On the same day the respondent suspended the petitioner from services. The chargesheet

¶13

2/3 wp1688.15.sxw

¶14

was served on the petitioner on 25^th April, 2014. So far the enquiry is not completed.

¶15

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that extension of suspension order was contrary to the Rules of Employees Service Regulations of the respondents. The enquiry ought to have been completed within stipulated time period.

¶16

There is no case made out against the petitioner for initiating departmental enquiry. Therefore, petitioner shall be continued in service. Learned Counsel placed reliance on reported judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1912/2015) and regulations framed by the respondents.

¶17

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 on instructions submits that initially petitioner was suspended and thereafter in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the Standing Committee, it continued the suspension orders. Considering the seriousness of the charge and the fact that offence under Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner and petitioner was arrested an enquiry is required to be initiated.

¶18

wp1688.15.sxw

¶19

3/3

¶20

On instructions, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1

¶21

submits that enquiry shall be completed within one month from today. We direct that enquiry shall be completed according to the statement made above. We do not express any opinion on merits. With aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶22

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶23

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Prakash Venkatrao Padalwar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Venkatrao Padalwar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Sameer Gous Jamadar Vs the Commissioner, and Ors.

Shri. Kiran Lavhaji Madane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Mridula P. Sharma Vs State Bank of India and Other 14

Dr. Anay Prabhakar Thigle Vs Medical Superintendent, Sub-District Hospital and Ors.

Mrs. Ashwini Ashok Channe Vs Thane Zilla Parishad, Thane

Rajesh Mrulidhar Nikam Vs Union of India, through Director General (Chairman) and Ors.