JAGDISH BALIRAM TOTADE Vs. M N BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who holds a Bachelors degree in Arts faculty was employed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (2nd respondent) as Assistant on April 23, 1966. He was promoted as Class II Gazetted Officer and thereafter as class I Gazette officer to the post of Under Secretary from August 1, 1983. His service were governed by the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that on September 16, 1985 the Dy. Secretary and Controller of Examinations of the 2nd Respondent lodged a complaint with the Director of Anti-Coruption Bureaur, Maharashtra State against him and two other members of the staff viz. , Shri V. A. Jadhav Superintendent and Shri P. V. Kumavat, Clerk, alleging that they had committed offence of stealing and forging certain records of the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the said complaint, the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau visited the residential premises of the petitioner and carried out a search in which an old diary, containing certain roll numbers, was attached. On the next day a search was taken of the cupboards and tables of the petitioner at the office but nothing incriminating was recovered or seized. However, he was arrested on September 17, 1985, by the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau and was produced before a Magistrate who remanded him to custody till he was released on bail on October 3, 1985. His statement was recorded while in custody. In the meanwhile he was suspended by an order dated September 23, 1985. On completion of the investigation, the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau came to the conclusion that there was no material to proceed against the petitioner and therefore they filed an Application before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court Esplanade, for discharge of the petitioner which was granted by the learned Magistrate on April 11, 1986.

(3.) AFTER he was discharged by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent with a request that he be reinstated but without any results. He therefore filed Writ Petition No. 2004 of 1986 in this Court challenging his continued suspension. During the hearing of the said writ petition a statement was made on behalf of the 2nd respondent that departmental enquiry was intended against the petitioner and therefore, it was necessary to continue the suspension of the petitioner. In view of such a stand taken by the 2nd respondent, this Court directed that charge sheet be issued to the petitioner and the enquiry if started should be completed by the end of December 1986. In view of such direction of the Court, the petitioner withdrew his writ petition.