SUJATA KESHARINATH SAWE Vs. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner though presently under suspension is employed as accounts Officer in the office of Respondent no. 1. Respondent No. 1 is a statutory Board established under the Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The respondent no. 2 is the Member Secretary, Respondent No. 4 is the Chairman. By the present petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(2.) At the outset we may pointout that it will not be possible at this stage to grant the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) , as prima facie we are of the opinion that the charge sheet could have been issued based on the purported misconduct and it is for the Enquiry Officer to decide whether the charges as established or proved. In so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned we may further point out that the respondent No. 3 has been appointed on an ad hoc basis. The petitioner who is in Accounts department, is not eligible for consideration to the said post and consequently we need not address ourselves to that controversy. The real issue, therefore, would be in the matter of quashing the order of suspension.

(3.) With the above, we may set out a few facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy. Pursuant to the order of suspension being served on the petitioner, the petitioner represented to respondent No. 2 who had issued the order of suspension. For the reasons set out in the representation dated 27th december, 2005 the petitioner called on the respondent No. 2 to withdraw the order of suspension. It is also set out that being a Class-I Officer, in order to suspend the petitioner approval of Competent Authority is mandatory viz the Chairman of the Board. It was pointed out that no such sanction has been received from the Chairman. As the petitioner did not hear from respondent No. 2 the petitioner preferred an Appeal dated 2nd January, 2006 to the respondent No. 4. Along with the Appeal the petitioner submitted a detailed note as to why the order of suspension be revoked. Apart from vanous other points two contentions urged were that being a Class-I Officer, for suspension approval of Competent Authority was mandatory. It was further pointed out that such approval has not been obtained. It was further set out that considering the order of suspension and the charge sheet, no case was made out for keeping the petitioner under suspension. The charge itself was denied. By a further representation dated 4th January, 2006 the petitioner raised other grounds, including that the Member Secretary, respondent No 2 herein was prejudiced and she would not get justice in the matter. The petitioner pointed out specifically that she had asked for change of the Enquiry Officer as the practice was to appoint a retired I. A. S. Officer to conduct the departmental Enquiry, but her request had been denied. It was also pointed out that though she was under suspension subsistence allowance was not being paid.