TUKARAM YESHWANT PATIL Vs. BHAGWANTRAO GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate case where the petitioner who is the head of the department, as Director of Horticulture, has been kept under suspension for months together pending the departmental inquiry which has not yet even started, and he has only six months to go before he reaches the superannuation age.

(2.) ON July 10, 1986, the Hon'ble Minister in -charge of the department declared on the floor of the Assembly that the petitioner was suspended on account of the proposed departmental inquiry, and on the same day the order of his suspensions was issued. On July 30, 1986 the present petition was filed challenging the suspension, and it was admitted by this Court on August 11, 1986. At the time of the admission, the Court was informed by the Government that they would complete the inquiry within six months. Although the period of six months expired on January 10, 1987, not even the chargesheet was served on the petitioner with the result that on January 14, 1987 the Advocate of the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Government, to reinstate the petitioner. Since nothing was heard from the Government, the petitioner filed a civil application in this petition on January 29, 1987. On January 31, 1987 the Government requested for a week's time, and on February 6, 1987 the Civil Application was heard, and this Court by way of an interim order in the Application directed the Government to deposit subsistence allowance of the petitioner. The Government was further directed to give reasons as to why no action was taken to complete the inquiry, till that day. The Government was supposed to deposit the subsistence allowance within a period of two weeks and give the said reasons within three weeks. On February 29, 1987, the Civil Application was heard again after three weeks. None remained present on behalf of the Government nor were any reasons given to the Court. On March 6, 1987, an affidavit of the Deputy Secretary to the Government was filed stating that some information was yet to be collected to frame charges against the petitioner. This was obviously against the tenor of the statement made by the Hon'ble Minister on the floor of the Assembly, since the statement gave an impression that the Government had everything in their possession to charge -sheet and suspend the petitioner. Ultimately on April 24, 1987 a Contempt Petition was filed against the Government which was admitted. Thereafter for the first time on April 25, 1987 a chargesheet dated April 8, 1987 was served on the petitioner. It was replied to on June 15, 1987 and thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed in August 14, 1987. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court once again now making a grievance firstly that on pay or subsistence allowance for about eight months is paid to him except an ad hoc amount of Rs. 15,900/ - and that no further steps are taken to complete the inquiry.

(3.) HOWEVER if the Government does not, for some reason which is not apparent to us, desire the petitioner to resume his post of Director of Horticulture from which he is suspended, the Government can always place him in another post which is equivalent in status and pay scale viz. Rs. 2000 -125/2250.