STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMESH JAGANNATH DHADIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 6th August 2001 passed by maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, "mat") allowing Original Application No. 600 of 2001 filed by the Respondent, Who is an employee of the Fisheries Department of the State government working under Petitioner No. 2. The order passed by the MAT directed Petitioner no. 2-The Commissioner (Fisheries) to revoke the order of suspension which was passed against the respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this Petition are as follows:- The Respondent was working as an Assistant fisheries Development offer at the relevant time under Petitioner No. 2. It is alleged that an amount of Rs. 500. 00 was Paid by one Mr. Patil to one mr. Dangre, an officer superior to the Respondent on 8th September 2000 to get his work done. Out of this amount of Rs. 500. 00, Rs. 200. 00 was supposed to have been passed over to the Respondent. A trap was led and Mr. Dangre was caught therein. As a consequence of his arrest, the Respondent remained in custody in that action for a period of more than 48 hours. He was, therefore, placed under suspension by an order passed on 30th september 2000. That order was passed in view of the provision under Rule 4 (1) (c) of the maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and appeal)Rules, 1979, which Provides for a deemed suspension if an employee remains in custody for a period of more than 48 hours. As far as the misconduct is Concerned, it appears that petitioner No. 2 decided to go along with the criminal case and to await the decision thereof and no separate departmental enquiry was initiated against the Respondent. It is necessary to note that the Respondent has been on bail thereafter.

(3.) IT was the case of the Respondent that in such cases of suspension, if a chargesheet is not filed within the period of six months, then the suspension stands revoked automatically. This was on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 3rd April 2000 which was passed after considering the earlier directions and circulars. This government Resolution laid down the provisions concerning various steps to be taken in actions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Clause 5 of this Government Resolution provided for the time table with respect to the actions to be taken. This Clause 5 has 7 sub-clauses. Clause 5 (7) (a) lays down that in the trap cases the period for filing the cases (i. e. chargesheet will be maximum six months. At the end of sub-clause 7 (d), it is provided that in the event the competent officer does not take any decision within the period provided, then immediately on the next day at the end of the expiry of the period of suspension, the suspension will be deemed to have concluded. It was, therefore, the case of the Respondent that after the expiry of the period of six months, if the chargesheet is not filed, the suspension shall be deemed to have expired automatically and revoked. In the present case, admittedly, the chargesheet was not filed within six months and we are now told that it was ultimately filed on 4th September 2001 in the Special Court at Nashik.