The Bombay High Court refused to quash the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s (MAT) order revoking the suspension and ordering for reinstatement of a senior police officer, noting the suspension orders cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Dhiraj Patil, a superintendent of police level officer, held the post of executive director (security and enforcement) at the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd (MSEDCL), at the time of his suspension.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse on August 18 dismissed the petition filed by a woman who had challenged the MAT’s July 2022 order revoking Patil’s suspension and directing for his reinstatement in service. The MAT had also directed for the departmental enquiry initiated against Patil to be completed within three months.
The petitioner, who is a lawyer, had complained against Patil in July 2021 levelling allegations which were personal in nature. Pursuant to the complaint, a departmental enquiry was initiated against Patil in February 2022, and on March 2, he was placed under suspension.
Patil then challenged his suspension before the MAT. The allegations made by the petitioner (woman) against the respondent No 1 (Patil) in her complaint are personal in nature. The petitioner has reserved her right to file a criminal complaint against respondent No 1 for offences punishable under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC, the high court said.
It further noted that these allegations were also the subject matter of the departmental enquiry initiated against Patil. Even the MAT, in its order, has mentioned the summary of these allegations, but has not rendered any finding one way or the other on the correctness of the same, it said.
In such circumstances, we do not find it appropriate to deal with these allegations, the court said. The bench further held that the law on orders of suspension was well settled and the high court would interfere with such orders only if they are passed in a malafide manner or otherwise shown to be illegal.
It added that the MAT had correctly concluded that the order of suspension cannot continue indefinitely and has hence ordered for the departmental enquiry to be completed in a time-bound manner. Thus, we find no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the MAT. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the MAT, the court said.
What the petitioner seeks is nothing but the continuance of suspension of respondent No 1 possibly for some indefinite period. The petitioner has no such legally enforceable right to demand continuance of the suspension, it said.
Read the Latest News and Breaking News here
Comments
0 comment