Ninganna Kallanna Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Urban Development — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ninganna Kallanna Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Urban Development — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal raising all permissible contentions (including delay in completion of the enquiry) seeking revocation of suspension; such application to be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order, with expediting requests to be suitably considered.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the Tribunal afresh by filing a new Original Application for revocation of his suspension, relying on his acquittal in the criminal case and the delay in completion of the departmental enquiry.

Court's answer

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal raising all permissible contentions, including the question of delay in completion of the enquiry, seeking revocation of the suspension.

Ratio / Principle

If such a fresh Original Application is filed, it shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order.

Key takeaways

Any request made to the Tribunal to expedite the fresh Original Application will be suitably considered, given that what would be under challenge is the order of suspension.obiter¶27
The Court expressly declined to make any observations at this stage on the other charges faced by the Petitioner (including allegations of misbehavior with women employees), as these are matters which are subject matter of the disciplinary enquiry.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: M.S. Karnik & S.M. Modak, JJ.; Oral Order per M.S. Karnik, J.), Writ Petition No. 13881 of 2025, disposed of on 23rd January, 2026. The Petitioner, Chief Executive Officer of Talegaon Dabhade Municipal Council, was suspended from service on 08/07/2024 pending departmental enquiry after an FIR for rash and negligent driving in a drunken state. His Original Application before the Tribunal seeking revocation of the suspension was dismissed by the impugned order dated 15/04/2025; the fact of his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case (trial Court order dated 07/04/2025) could not be placed before the Tribunal at the relevant time. Considering the passage of time, the Court granted liberty to file a fresh Original Application raising all permissible contentions, including delay in completion of the enquiry, to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the Tribunal's observations in the impugned order; any request to expedite was to be suitably considered since the order of suspension would be under challenge. The Court declined to make observations on the other charges, including alleged misbehavior with women employees, being matters subject matter of the disciplinary enquiry.

Ingale

903-wp-13881-2025.odt

Digitally signed by URMILA URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2026.01.23 16:20:49 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 13881 OF 2025

Ninganna Kallanna Patil … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .… Respondent

Mr. Akshay Kapadia i/b Gurubala Birajdar, for the Petitioner. Mr. N.C.Walimbe Addl GP a/w Smt.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & S.M.MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 23^rd JANUARY, 2026

ORAL ORDER (PER M.S.KARNIK, J.) :

The Petitioner was working as a Chief Executive Officer

with Talegaon Dabhade Municipal Council. An FIR came to be filed against the Petitioner for rash and negligent driving in a drunken state. The Petitioner was suspended from service on 08/07/2024 pending departmental enquiry. It is submitted that

the departmental enquiry has commenced and even the cross examination of the witnesses is under progress.

The Petitioner filed an Original Application before the

1

Ingale 903-wp-13881-2025.odt

Tribunal seeking revocation of the order of suspension on various grounds. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 15/04/2025 has dismissed the Original Application.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in respect of the criminal proceedings that were initiated against him, the same has resulted in his acquittal pursuant to the order of the trial Court dated 07/04/2025. It is however submitted that inadvertently, the fact of the Petitioner’s acquittal could not be placed for the consideration of the Tribunal when the impugned order came to be passed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further made a grievance that though the enquiry commenced as far back as on 08/07/2024, the disciplinary proceedings are still on-going. It is submitted that such delay is seriously causing prejudice to the Petitioner and therefore suspension deserves to be revoked.

We have heard learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent-State. Learned Additional Government Pleader pointed out that aforesaid is one of the charges. The Petitioner is also chargesheeted for other serious charges of misbehavior with women employees. These are

2

Ingale 903-wp-13881-2025.odt

obviously matters which are subject matter of the disciplinary enquiry over which we do not wish to make any observations at this stage.

It is the submission of the Petitioner that he wants to place these facts before the Tribunal and in view of the delay in completion of the enquiry, wants to prefer Original Application seeking revocation of the order of suspension on the aforesaid grounds.

Considering the passage of time, liberty as prayed for is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal raising all permissible contentions including question of delay in completion of the enquiry thereby seeking revocation of the suspension. It is made clear that if such an Original Application is filed, the same shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order.

If a request is made to the Tribunal for expediting the Original Application, we have no manner of doubt that such a request will be suitably considered, considering that what would

3

Ingale 903-wp-13881-2025.odt

be under challenge is the order of suspension.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

(S.M.MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

4