Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shailendra Vasant Panpatil, an Extension Officer employed by Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, was placed under suspension on 6.3.2007 by the Chief Executive Officer on the ground that he was being prosecuted in Crime No.2/2005 for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station, Deopur, and investigated by the State Crime Department, Dhule. The alleged crime occurred in 2002, before the petitioner's employment with Zilla Parishad on 30.11.2004. The chargesheet was filed, and the criminal case was pending for five years. The petitioner was receiving 75% of his salary as subsistence allowance. In an earlier Writ Petition (No.8575/2011), the Court directed the Review Committee (respondent No.3) to consider the proposal for revocation of suspension. However, the Committee, by decision dated 27.3.2012, communicated on 31.3.2012, refused to accept the proposal. The petitioner challenged this decision. The Court held that the Review Committee must consider the proposal on its merits and cannot refuse to accept it merely because the criminal case is pending. The Court quashed the Committee's decision and directed it to reconsider the proposal and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Review Committee - Refusal to Accept Proposal - The Review Committee refused to accept the proposal sent by the Chief Executive Officer to revoke the petitioner's suspension, which was imposed due to registration of a criminal offence. The Court held that the Committee must consider the proposal on its merits and cannot refuse to accept it arbitrarily. (Paras 3-5) B) Service Law - Suspension - Indefinite Continuation - The petitioner was suspended since 6.3.2007 and the criminal case was pending for five years. The Court held that suspension cannot be continued indefinitely without review, and the Committee must decide the proposal for revocation. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Review Committee's refusal to accept the proposal for revocation of suspension was valid and whether the petitioner's continued suspension was justified.
Final Decision
The Court quashed the decision of the Review Committee dated 27.3.2012 and directed the Committee to reconsider the proposal for revocation of suspension and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.
Law Points
- Suspension cannot be continued indefinitely without review
- Review Committee must consider proposal for revocation on merits
- Pendency of criminal case does not automatically justify continued suspension
