Writ Petition No. 11987 of 2015. Case: Dr. Narender Omprakash Bansal, Mumbai Vs The Addl. Chief Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Dept. and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 11987 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. R.A. Dada, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.D. Soni, Mr. Sujay Gawde, Mr. Kamal Bhatt and Mr. Ajay Sharma i/by Shree & Co. and For Respondents: Mr. C.P. Yadav, Assistant Government Pleader |
| Judges | D. H. Waghela, C.J. and M. S. Sonak, J. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 - Rules 8, 4(5)(C), 10 |
| Judgement Date | March 11, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
D. H. Waghela, C.J.
-
The petition is admitted and service of Rule is waived by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
-
Heard, by consent, the petition is disposed of.
-
The petitioner is a Professor of Cardiology and Head of Department in Grant Medical College and Sir J.J.Group of Hospital. He has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 16th October 2015 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ('Tribunal') in Original Application No.444 of 2015 and has also prayed to quash the order dated 29th May 2016 of his suspension from service. Before partly allowing the Original Application by the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded in the impugned order as under:
"54. The fact that the suspension is certainly the matter of hardship. In the background that in present case though four months have passed to the suspension, chargesheet is not served on the applicant and even review as regards continuation or revocation of suspension is not shown to have been taken.
-
Though suspension is not proved to be mala fide, the conduct of State is not shown or seen to be diligent.
-
It is evident that though power to suspend exists and material to reach a conclusion as to need of suspension exists, it is not adequate to draft the charge sheet since despite lapse of period more than four months has elapsed, charge sheet is not issued. Therefore it can be safely said that Government did hurry in issuing the order of suspension and has inordinately withheld serving of chargesheet.
-
Be it that the Government was satisfied as to need of suspension, but needed time to gather more evidence, it should have waited to collect entire and additional material and evidence required as a basis for a comprehensive charge sheet. The Government ought to have waited for a month or two, employed appropriate devices, machinery, personnel, or agency for collecting any and entire factual data which according to the Government constitutes serious misconduct. After collecting any or all such evidence, Government should have moved forward for taking recourse of issue of order of suspension. Such a prudent step would have certainly proved the Government's action to be charged with sincerity. This hurry may not be perse evidence of mala fides, however, is certainly evidence of the action of the Government lacking required degree of prudence. Prudence is always expected, though there are judicial limitations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial