In The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai: District: Thane

IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.452 OF 2021
DISTRICT : THANE
Shri Vikas Eknath Jog. )

Age : 50 Yrs., Working as Inspector of )
Legal Metrology, Mandavi Division – II, )
Masjid Bandar (W), Mumbai and residing )
at 602, Spring, Season Complex, )
Khandakpada Circle, Kalyan (W), )
District : Thane. )...Applicant
Versus
1. The Controller. )
Legal Metrology, M.S, Mumbai, )
Having Office at Fountain Telecom )
Building No.1, 7th Floor, M.G. Road, )
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. )
2. The State of Maharashtra. )

Through Principal Secretary, )
Civil Supply, Consumer Protection )
Department, Mantralaya, )
Mumbai – 400 032. )…Respondents
Mr. A.V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for Applicant.

Mrs. A.B. Kololgi, Presenting Officer for Respondents.
CORAM : SHRI A.P. KURHEKAR, MEMBER-J
DATE : 27.10.2021
2 O.A.452/2021
JUDGMENT
1. The Applicant has challenged the suspension order dated 28th

June, 2021 whereby he is suspended in contemplation of departmental
enquiry invoking Rule 4(1) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1979’ for brevity).
2. Shortly stated facts giving rise to this application are as under :-
While Applicant was serving as Inspector of Legal Metrology, Mandvi-2,

there were complaints against his functioning, and therefore, Respondent
No.1 – Controller, Legal Metrology by order dated 01.03.2020 shifted him
as Inspector of Legal Metrology, Vikalp-Vahan, Tank-1 on vacant post.
However, the Applicant did not join at the place where he was shifting
and did not handover the charge of his post at Mandvi-2. Therefore, the
Respondent No.1 by order dated 28.06.2021 suspended the Applicant in
contemplation of D.E. for disobedience, etc. He is subjected to prolong
suspension without initiating the D.E, and therefore, has approached
this Tribunal by filing the present O.A.
3. Shri Bandiwadekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits

that the Applicant is subjected to prolong suspension beyond 90 days
without filing charge-sheet, and therefore, he is liable to be reinstated in
service in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 7 SCC
291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr.). He has
further pointed out that even till date, no charge-sheet is served upon the
Applicant for which he was suspended by order dated 20.06.2021. He,
therefore, prayed that direction be given to take review of suspension.
4. Per contra, Mrs. A.B. Kololgi, learned Presenting Officer submits

that there was serious complaints against the Applicant which
necessitated his shifting from Mandvi-2 to Vikalp-Vahan, Tank-1, but he
3 O.A.452/2021
did not join there and thereby committed serious misconduct. As regard
initiation of DE, she submits that matter is under process at the level of
Government and charge-sheet will be issued soon. She fairly concedes
that no review is taken till date though period of 90 days is over.
5. Undoubtedly, the adequacy of material before the competent

authority for suspension of a Government servant cannot be the subject
matter of judicial review, since it exclusively falls within the domain of
competent authority. However, the question posed in the present O.A. is
to how long Applicant could be subjected to prolong suspension without
taking any steps to review the suspension. The Applicant was subjected
to suspension only in contemplation of DE, for which till date, no DE is
initiated though period of four months is over.
6. The legal position in respect of prolong suspension is no more res-

integra in view of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 7 SCC
291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr.). It will be
appropriate to reproduce Para Nos.11, 12 & 21 of the Judgment, which is
as follows :-
“11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is

essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short
duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based
on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would
render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings
invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior
and post the drawing up of the memorandum of charges, and eventually
culminate after even longer delay.
12. Protracted period of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have

regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be.
The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of
society and the derision of his department, has to endure this excruciation
even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanor, indiscretion or
offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will
inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to
its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too
often this has become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably, the
sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly
guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or
assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must
4 O.A.452/2021
remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable
tenets of Common Law Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of
1215, which assures that – “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or
defer to any man either justice or right.” In similar vein the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees
that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial.
21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should
not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if
the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order
must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in
hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any
department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever
any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse
for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also
prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and
documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this
will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human
dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest
of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that the previous
Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the
grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the
imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in
prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that
pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held
in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”
7. The Judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case was also

followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Pramod
Kumar and another (Civil Appeal No.2427-2428 of 2018) dated 21st
August, 2018 wherein it has been held that, suspension must be
necessarily for a short duration and if no useful purpose could be served
by continuing the employee for a longer period and reinstatement could
not be threat for fair trial or departmental enquiry, the suspension
should not continue further.
8. Shri G.A. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant further

referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.29881
of 2010 and M. P. No.2 of 2010 (V. Santhanagopalan V/s. The
Commissioner/Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj),
decided on 07.12.2017. In the said case, the Petitioner was kept under
5 O.A.452/2021
suspension in view of the registration of crime under Prevention of

Corruption Act as well as in contemplation of D.E. by suspension order
dated 29.07.2009. However, he was subjected to prolong suspension.
Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case (cited supra), quashed the
suspension order and directions were issued to post the Petitioner on
non-sensitive post as the administration deems fit.
9. Suffice to say, in view of dicta of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay

Kumar Choudhary’s matter, the suspension should not exceed beyond
90 days, if within this period, the memorandum of charges is not served
upon a Government servant and where memorandum is served, a
reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension.
However, in the present case, no such exercise is undertaken though
period of more than four months is over, which is in contravention of
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case.
The Respondent is under obligation to take review of suspension and to
pass appropriate order about the revocation of suspension or
continuation of suspension for the reasons to be recorded, as the case
may be. But in any case, the Applicant cannot be subjected to such
prolong suspension.
10. Indeed, the Government by G.R. dated 09.07.2019 has

acknowledged the mandate laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay
Kumar Choudhary’s case that suspension beyond 90 days would be
impermissible and instructions are issued to the Departments to ensure
initiation of DE within 90 days. In the said G.R, it is clarified by the
Government that where charge-sheet is not served within three months
in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there would be no
option except to revoke the suspension, and therefore, directions were
issued to ensure initiation of DE within 90 days.
6 O.A.452/2021
11. In view of above, the present O.A. is required to be disposed of by

giving direction to the Respondents to take review of suspension of the
Applicant. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(A) The Original Application is allowed partly.

(B) The Respondents are directed to take review of suspension of
the Applicant and shall pass appropriate order within six
weeks from today.
(C) The decision, as the case may be, shall be communicated to
the Applicant within two weeks thereafter.
(D) If Applicant felt aggrieved by the decision, he may avail
further remedy in accordance to law.
(E) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(A.P. KURHEKAR)
Member-J
Mumbai
Date : 27.10.2021
Dictation taken by :
S.K. Wamanse.
D:\SANJAY WAMANSE\JUDGMENTS\2021\October, 2021\O.A.452.21.w.10.2021.Suspension.doc
Uploaded on

In The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai: District: Thane

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai: District: Thane

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai: District: Thane

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.452 OF 2021

Shri Vikas Eknath Jog. )

2. The State of Maharashtra. )

Mr. A.V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for Applicant.

CORAM : SHRI A.P. KURHEKAR, MEMBER-J

1. The Applicant has challenged the suspension order dated 28th

2. Shortly stated facts giving rise to this application are as under :-

While Applicant was serving as Inspector of Legal Metrology, Mandvi-2,

3. Shri Bandiwadekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits

4. Per contra, Mrs. A.B. Kololgi, learned Presenting Officer submits

5. Undoubtedly, the adequacy of material before the competent

6. The legal position in respect of prolong suspension is no more res-

“11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is

12. Protracted period of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have

7. The Judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case was also

8. Shri G.A. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant further

suspension in view of the registration of crime under Prevention of

9. Suffice to say, in view of dicta of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay

10. Indeed, the Government by G.R. dated 09.07.2019 has

11. In view of above, the present O.A. is required to be disposed of by

(A) The Original Application is allowed partly.

You might also like