MACHHINDRA PANDURANG CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Minimum Wage Inspector (Agriculture ). On 16th of October, 1986 the petitioner was apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Bureau for accepting illegal gratification from one E. S. Pattan Shetti of Gadhinglaj. Thereafter he came to be transferred from Kolhapur district to Sangli District. In pursuance of the said transfer order the petitioner took charge at Sangli on 5th of March 1987. after completing preliminary enquiry, the Anti-Corruption Bureau filed a criminal case against the petitioner under section 161 of the I. P. C. read with sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of this pendency of criminal proceedings the petitioner came to be suspended under the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. It is this order of suspension which is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

(2.) SHRI N. H. Seervai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that the petitioner was involved in a false criminal case. He had brought this fact to the notice of the concerned Minister vide complaint dated 9th January, 1987. Thereafter petitioner came to be transferred on 1st March, 1987 from Kolhapur to Sangli district On 8th of April, 1987 the Additional Commissioner accorded sanction under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the petitioner. Thereafter a criminal case was filed against the petitioner which came to be committed tot the Sessions Court on 12th of October, 1987. Almost after, 18 months of the incident, he came to be suspended vide order dated 29th of August, 1988. Thus according to the learned Counsel this order of suspension is unwarranted, excessive and amounts to abuse of power. It tantamounts to punishment. The transfer of the petitioner from Kolhapur to Sangli district was in itself sufficient punishment. There is nothing on record to a show that the petitioner was tempering with the evidence and/or was influencing witnesses. From 1st of March, 1987 to 29th of August, 1988 no move was made to suspend the petitioner. Thus this delated suspension is wholly unwarranted and unjustified. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that such a suspension order could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and therefore is void being violative of principles of natural justice. In support of this contention reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court report in 1983 (1) Bombay Cases Reporter 343 (Rajeshwar Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra and anr.), and a decision in Writ Petition No. 203-A of 1982 2 (Dhondiraj Vithalrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra decided by Kanade and D. B. Deshpande, JJ. , on 5th of July 1982. According the respondents immediately on apprehension, petitioner was transferred from Kolhapur district to Sangli district. The competent authority was of the opinion that even after transfer the petitioner may tamper with the record and office material. After investigation a criminal case came to be filed against him which is still pending. The petitioner was cought red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 200/ -. The post of Minimum Wage Inspector (Agrill is declared as a sensitive post vide Government Resolution dated 10th of April, 1987. The competent authority came to the conclusion that if the petitioner is allowed to discharge his duties, he is likely to abuse his office for his personal gains and, therefore, it was not in the public interest to allow him to continue in active services till the disposal of the criminal case. The suspension of the petitioner is pending the criminal case of serious nature and, therefore, it was not necessary to give him an opportunity of being heard before passing such an order of interim suspension. The said suspension did not amount to punishment.

(3.) SO far as the decisions on which reliance is placed by the Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is contended by the respondents that they are decided on their own facts and further they run counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in that behalf. The said decisions have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.