Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Bombay High Court

Jagannath Masaji Bansode vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 February, 2020

Author: M.S. Karnik

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.S. Karnik

                                              1                 45. WP 3404.15.doc

        JPP


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3404 OF 2015

        Jagannath Masaji Bansode                            ... Petitioner

                V/s.

        State of Maharashtra and Ors.                       ... Respondents

        None for the Petitioner
        Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondents 1
Jyoti   Mr.    I.M.
        Digitally      Khairdi for Respondent No. 2 and 3
                  signed
        by Jyoti P.
        Pawar
P.      Date:

Pawar
        2020.02.11
        12:42:59 +0530                     CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
                                                  M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : 5 FEBRUARY 2020.

P.C. :-

By this Petition the Petitioner has challenged the order placing him under suspension issued by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 11 July 2013. The Respondents have placed the Petitioner under suspension in view of the criminal case initiated on a FIR dated 23 August 2013 invoking Section 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner in the year 2014 had made representation to revoke the suspension, however no decision thereupon has been taken.

2 45. WP 3404.15.doc

2. None appears for the Petitioner when the Petition is called out. It is now almost six and half years that the Petitioner is under suspension. The Respondents have not filed their reply. The present stage of the proceedings is not on record. We note that the Respondents in the suspension order have referred to Rule 4(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979. By passage of time as above, it is necessary that the Respondents take a review of the said decision of placing the Petitioner under suspension as cogent reason may not survive for continuation of the suspension. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the representations made by the Petitioner are decided by the Respondents in respect of revocation of his suspension.

3. We dispose of this Writ Petition directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take a decision on the representations made by the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today. We clarify that the decision will be taken as per law.

      M.S. KARNIK, J.                          NITIN JAMDAR, J.