Rajendra Shikharchand Patodi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Nov 2016WP/10119/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition challenging suspension and penalty. The Court noted the suspension was revoked and the challenge to penalty was withdrawn. It directed the petitioner to approach appropriate forums for the remaining grievance while keeping proceedings expeditious.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the penalty withholding of one increment before the forum as permissible in law.

Rajendra Shikharchand Patodi Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 10119/15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.10119/2015

¶5

Rajendra Shikharchand Patodi.

¶6

..Petitioner ..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶9

 ...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri U.R.Awate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms.R.P.Gaur, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶12

Shri Dilip Patil Bankar, Advocate for respondent nos.2 &
4.
Respondent No.3 Served.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 15.11.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Mr.Awate, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶17

states that during the pendency of this writ petition,
more precisely on 22.9.2016, the respondents have revoked

¶18

the order of suspension passed against the petitioner.
However, without any basis, one increment has been
withheld. The procedure as required is not followed.
2]Mr.Bankar Patil, the learned counsel for the

¶19

respondents states that the order of suspension has been
withdrawn during the pendency of this petition.

¶20

WP 10119/15

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

3]This Court on 25.1.2016 had recorded that the

¶23

learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction of the
petitioner gives up the challenge with regard to the
imposition of penalty by way of stoppage of one increment
and that the petitioner would prefer an appeal against
the said order and the present petition was restricted to
the action of suspending the petitioner.

¶24

4]As the order of suspension is revoked, the same does
not survive. Needless to state, the petitioner is at
liberty to prefer an appeal against the penalty imposed
against the petitioner i.e. withholding of one increment
before the forum as permissible in law. While preferring
the appeal, the time lost in prosecuting the present

¶25

petition shall be considered. All contentions of the
parties in that regard are kept open. Needless to state,

¶26

even the enquiry which is commenced against the

¶27

petitioner shall be concluded in accordance with law
expeditiously considering that the charge-sheet is also
given. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.

¶28

 (K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶29

ndk/ c1511167.doc

Rajendra Shikharchand Patodi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Shikharchand Patodi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sandip Jugalkishor Agrawal Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinay Tilokchand Karnavat Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sandip Jugalkishor Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyanada Bhagyaravi Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagirathi Gangadhar Bhujbal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Suresh Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others