Disposed

Shri. Prakash Krishna Shambharkar v. the Chairman / Disciplinary Authority, Air Ports Authority of India

Bombay HC12 Jul 2019WP/7477/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition challenging a suspension after the department reinstated the petitioner during pendency. Consequently, the prayer to revise subsistence allowance was not pressed as the inquiry report was pending final action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without deciding the prayers due to subsequent reinstatement and pending inquiry finalization.

Shri. Prakash Krishna Shambharkar Vs the Chairman /… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

15 wp 7477.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7477 of 2019

¶4

Shri Prakash Krishna Shambharkar versus The Chairman/Disciplinary Authority, Air Ports Authority of India, New Delhi

¶5

….Petitioner

¶6

…..Respondent

¶7

Mr. Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Talsania along with Mr. B. K. Ashok i/b. Bekay Legal,advocates for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 12^th JULY, 2019.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

The petitioner working as Joint General Manager (ATC) at Mumbai was placed under suspension by an order dated 14^th March, 2018 and this prompted him to file the present petition challenging the said suspension.

¶11

During the pendency of this petition, by an order dated 19^th June, 2019, passed by the General Manager (HR), Airport Authority of India, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated from the date on which he formally joins the duty. In light of the said subsequent development, we have considered the prayers of the petitioner to revise the subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 24 of the Airport Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 2003 and he specifically placed reliance on Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 24.

¶12

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶13

15 wp 7477.19.doc

¶14

As regards the interpretation of the said order, Mr. Talsania, learned senior counsel submitted that the Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 24 contemplates a subsistence allowance equal to 50 percent of the basic pay during the period of suspension and Sub-Rule (2), is in case of contingency where the period of suspension exceeds 3 months and the authority who has placed the employee under suspension is then competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance either by hiking it by 25% or reducing it by 25% in the contingency in existence and specified in sub-clauses(i) and (ii) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 24.

¶15

In any contingency, since the petitioner is now reinstated and the inquiry officer has submitted his report but the final action on the said inquiry report by the disciplinary authority is awaited, the disciplinary authority, in any case, would take a final decision in terms of Rule 25 of Regulations of 2003 on culmination of the inquiry proceedings. In such circumstances, the writ petition do not survive and is disposed off.

¶16

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶17

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Shri. Prakash Krishna Shambharkar v. the Chairman / Disciplinary Authority, Air Ports Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Prakash Krishna Shambharkar v. the Chairman / Disciplinary Authority, Air Ports Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Brijkishan Kaul and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Thru Managing Director Mr. Ramchandra D. Mahuli Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Dy. Secretary, Dept. of Co-Operation and Textile and Ors.

Mah. State Electricity Board Backward Classes Sr. Engineers and Officers Asso. Thru President Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Dept. of Energy and Ors.

Asif Saleh Mohammed Khan @ Asif Khan Ali Mohammed Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaysukhbhai Savjibhai Dubaria and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravinkumar Mallappa Pujari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.