RAJESHWAR SAYANNA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule heard Mr. Godhamgaonkar for the petitioner and Mr. Choudhary, Government Pleader, for the respondents. Mr. Choudhary wavies service on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, petition taken up today.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Police Patil at village Illegaon, Taluka Billoli, District Nanded, with effect from 10th September, 1980 and his appointment was initially for a period of five years. Respondents No. 2 is the competent authority of the petitioner. There is no dispute that Crime No. 41 to 1982 under sections 323, 448, 504 & 506, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner at Dharmanbad Police Station and during the stage of investigation, he was arrested on 27th July, 1982 and was released on bail. A charge-sheet against him has also been filed in the relevant Court. The intimation regarding the registration of offence was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, i.e. respondent No. 2, by the P.S.I. and vide order dated 14th September, 1982 the petitioner came to be suspended as the complaint came to be filed against him.

(3.) It was the grievances of the petitioner that before suspending him from the post of Police Patil, he was not given any hearing by the competent authority nor had the competent authority used the power judicially before passing the impunged order of suspension against him. This point was considered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 203-A of 1982 (Dhondiraj Vithalrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra) decides on 5th July,1982. In that writ petition the order of suspension in similar circumstances was quashed and it was held that in cases of this kind suspension works as a penalty and the rules of natural justice require that the petitioner must be heard before any such order of suspension is passed.