STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHIVRAM SAMBHAJIRAO SADAWARTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been moved before us for the sole purpose to settle the position in law so far as this Court is concerned, in the matter of suspension of a Government employee under Rule 4 (1) (c) or 4 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules 1979 (for short the Rules ).

(2.) WE shall briefly set out the facts of this case. The respondent was working as Naib Tahsildar at Badnapur, Dist. Jalna and while he was holding the said post a complaint came to be lodged with the Anti Corruption Bureau, alleging that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-, alongwith one Awal Karkoon Shri Prakash Tribhuwan, on 10-10-1997. The applicant came to be arrested on the same day and he was in police custody for more than 48 hours, as a result of the raid by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalna. This followed an order of suspension issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 27-10-1997. Simultaneously a charge-sheet also came to be filed before the Special Court at Jalna. The trial before the Special Court is pending as at present and in the meanwhile, the respondent submitted a representation to the Divisional Commissioner, on 20-7-1998 requesting to revoke the suspension order as the suspension period had exceeded six months or nine months, as the case may be. The Divisional Commissioner, rejected the said representation on 11-9-1998 and therefore, the respondent approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad, by filing Original Application No. 439 of 1998. He also prayed for interim relief by way of stay to the order of suspension and directions for reinstatement in service. The Tribunal by order dated 10-1-2000 admitted the original application and granted the prayer for interim relief by relying upon the judgments of this Court in the case of (Khushal Janbaji Gaidhane v. State of Maharashtra and others), reported in 1986 Maharashtra Law Journal 235 and (Namdeo G. Kalwale v. State of Maharashtra), reported in 1998 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal 909. The Divisional Commissioner, in obedience of the order passed by the Tribunal, issued an order dated 25-1-2000 and reinstated the respondent. The interlocutory order of the Tribunal has thus been implemented and O. A. No. 1082/99 is still pending before the Tribunal.

(3.) SHRI Sapkal, learned A. G. P. at the threshold submitted that this petition is being pursued by the Government for setting the controversy at rest in regard to the issue of State Governments power to keep an employee under suspension during the pendency of trial or enquiry or investigation or in contemplation of a departmental enquiry against the Government servant, in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court in the case of Khushal Janbaji Gaidhane (supra) and Namdeo G. Kalwale (supra) on one hand and (Rambhau Raghobaji Rewatkar v. State of Maharashtra), reported in 1984 Maharashtra Law Journal 1040, on the other hand. It is further submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal the judgments of this Court in the case of Khushal Janbaji Gaidhane and Namdeo G. Kalwale, are solely based on the G. R. dated 18-9-1974. The relevant para of the said resolution is reproduced below: