Writ Petition No.8608 of 2005. Case: State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Subhashchandra Bapusaheb Patankar. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No.8608 of 2005 |
| Counsel | Nitin P Deshpande, Shekhar A Ingawale |
| Judges | Kshitij R. Vyas, C.J. and D.Y. Chandrachud, J. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 - Regulations 4(1) and 4(2); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| Citation | 2006 (6) AllMR 315, 2006 (6) BomCR 373, 2006 (4) MahLJ 751 |
| Judgement Date | April 03, 2006 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service.By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up forhearing.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has, by itsjudgment dated 15th September 2005, which is impugned in theseproceedings by the State of Maharashtra, directed the Governmentto revoke an order by which the Respondent was suspended. TheState has been directed to reinstate the Respondent to the post ofDeputy Education Officer (Secondary). The Tribunal while notingthat the Respondent was arrested in a trap case by the AntiCorruption Bureau in January 2004, has ordered the revocation ofsuspension on the ground that no chargesheet has been filed inthe criminal case though a period of seventeen months haselapsed. The Tribunal has relied upon the view which it has takenin earlier cases that where a trial is likely to take a long period oftime and there is no likelihood of the delinquent tampering withwitnesses, the authorities should revoke the order of suspension.After hearing the AGP for the Petitioner and Counsel appearing onbehalf of the Respondent, we have arrived at the view that theorder of the Tribunal is manifestly erroneous and that it has to bequashed and set aside. We now proceed to elucidate our reasons.
The Respondent was holding the post of a DeputyEducation Officer (Secondary) at Kolhapur. He was incharge ofwork pertaining to litigation and an Assistant Teacher had filed anapplication before the School Tribunal at Kolhapur. The AssistantTeacher lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau and atrap was laid on 2nd January 2004. In the course thereof, it isalleged that the Respondent came to be arrested while he wasaccepting a bribe of Rs.10,000/- and C.R. 3 of 2004 was registeredby the Shahupuri Police Station at Kolhapur. By an order dated 6thJanuary 2004, the Respondent came to be placed on suspensionunder the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Disciplineand Appeal) Rules, 1979 by the Joint Secretary in the SchoolEducation Department of the State of Maharashtra.
The Respondent instituted an application before theMaharashtra Administrative Tribunal in order to challenge hissuspension from service contending inter alia that no chargesheethad been filed even though a period of fifteen months had elapsedfrom the date of the incident and the order of suspension. TheRespondent relied on a Government Resolution dated 3rd April2000 and contended that he had made a representation claimingreinstatement, and that had not received any response.
A reply was filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra inwhich it was submitted that in view of a subsequent Resolutiondated 16th March 2001, issued by the State of Maharashtra,amending the earlier GR dated 3rd April 2000, there could be norevocation of the order of suspension merely upon the completionof a period of...
To continue reading
Request your trial