Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Charlus Mirpagar, was employed as a Junior Assistant with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). In 2006, he was transferred to Shevgaon depot. On 21 January 2017, he performed his duties in the second shift at the workshop from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. on 22 January 2017. After his shift, while proceeding home, he was arrested by police at 3 a.m. based on an FIR registered at Bhingar Police Station. Consequently, he was suspended with effect from 23 January 2017 and served with a charge-sheet dated 27 January 2017. The petitioner challenged the suspension order and the charge-sheet by filing a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar. The Labour Court dismissed his application (Exh. U-2) on 5 October 2017. He then filed a revision before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, which was also dismissed on 12 April 2018. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the record and found that the petitioner was arrested on 22 January 2017 and suspended on 23 January 2017, but the charge-sheet was issued on 27 January 2017 without giving him an opportunity to explain his position. The Court held that the suspension order and the charge-sheet were illegal as they violated the principles of natural justice and the Standing Orders applicable to the Corporation. The Court quashed and set aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, and allowed the petitioner's application (Exh. U-2). The suspension order and charge-sheet were set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with continuity and all consequential benefits, but without back wages for the period of suspension.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Charge-Sheet - Standing Orders - Suspension order passed without considering employee's explanation and without affording opportunity of hearing is illegal - Petitioner employee was arrested and suspended, but charge-sheet was issued without giving him a chance to explain - Held that suspension order and charge-sheet are quashed and set aside (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suspension of the petitioner employee by the respondent Corporation without considering his explanation and without affording an opportunity of hearing is legal and valid.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, allowed the petitioner's application (Exh. U-2), and set aside the suspension order and charge-sheet. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with continuity and all consequential benefits, but without back wages for the suspension period.
Law Points
- Suspension without considering employee's explanation is illegal
- Charge-sheet without opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice
- Standing Orders require consideration of explanation before suspension
