The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging interim suspension of a school employee. It directed the Competent Authority to decide on the proposal after the departmental enquiry within one month.
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.
wp788.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.788 OF 2016 Dilip S/o Vitthalrao Bondre
..vs..
The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal and ors
....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders
Shri Bharat Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.S. Chitaley, Adv. H/f Shri Akshay Naik, counsel for R-2 & 3. Mrs. A.R. Kulkarni, AGP for R-1.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ. DATED : JULY 29, 2016. Heard.
An employee of Aashram School is before this Court complaining of an unduly long interim suspension as also validity of conditions attached to it.
Learned counsel Shri Bharat Kulkarni for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the time of his suspension, was working at Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal and while suspending, his headquarters has been changed to Yavatmal. His other contention is, the petitioner could not have been called upon to mark his attendance daily during the period of suspension. He argues that change of headquarters and a direction to mark attendance at Yavatmal at 07:00 a.m. in the morning, is issued only to harass the petitioner. He has
.....2/-
wp788.16
2
not been paid any subsistence allowance.
Advocate Shri H.S. Chataley h/f learned counsel Shri Akshay Naik for respondent Nos.2 and 3 is relying upon reply-affidavit. He submits that the petitioner is a “Cook” in an Aashram School where the girls students reside. The offence has been registered against him on 4.4.2015 under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The staff of Aashram School has, on 8.4.2015, complained in this respect to the Management. He has also invited our attention to the earlier complaints. He, therefore, submits that in this situation, considering the nature of allegations, the placement of the petitioner, immediate action was warranted and, therefore, interim suspension came to be ordered after taking necessary decision. The conditions were, therefore, added in the interest of staff and students. Those terms and conditions were never assailed and the petitioner has participated in the departmental enquiry. As petitioner did not obey the conditions, he was not paid the subsistence allowance. The enquiry is over and the papers have been sent to the Competent Authority seeking its approval.
Learned counsel Shri Bharat Kulkarni for the petitioner disputes that. He submits that even interim suspension could not have been ordered without prior approval of the Competent Authority. He
.....3/-
wp788.16
3
wants to demonstrate before this Court that the scheme of Aashram School does not envisage such suspension.
As we do find the departmental enquiry is already over and no objection was raised by the petitioner to change of his headquarters from Babhulgaon to Yavatmal or to any other condition in suspension order, till completion of that enquiry, it will not be proper at this stage to intervene in the matter. Our findings either way, may eclipse the further process.
We, therefore, keep all rival contentions
open.
The Management has forwarded necessary proposal after completion of the departmental enquiry to respondent No.1. We direct respondent No.1 to take appropriate decision on it in accordance with law, within next one month. If necessary, an opportunity of hearing shall be provided by him to the parties.
We also keep it open for respondent No.1 to examine grievance of the petitioner regarding nonpayment of subsistence allowance, during this period.
With these directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the writ petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BRW !!
.....4/-
wp788.16
4
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Order/Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order.
Uploaded by : Bhushan R.Wankhede. Uploaded on : -02/08/2016 (Personal Assistant)
...../-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should intervene regarding the validity of an interim suspension order for a school employee and conditions attached to it.
Dilip S/o Vitthalrao Bondre
The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal
The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Pandharkawada District Yavatmal and ors
Integrated Tribal Development Project, Pandharkawada
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
KUM. INDIRA K. JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
