Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Bhagwan Namdeo Rane, was a police employee in the State of Maharashtra. He was prosecuted for certain offences and, as a result, was suspended during the pendency of the criminal trial. Upon his acquittal, he was reinstated in service. The Police Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the period of suspension should not be treated as suspension. The petitioner replied, claiming that his acquittal was clear and that no witnesses had deposed against him, and therefore the suspension period should not be treated as suspension. The authority did not accept this explanation and passed an order treating the period as suspension. The petitioner challenged this order before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his application summarily, observing that the procedure under Rule 72 of the relevant Rules was duly followed and a sufficient reason was assigned by the authority. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the Tribunal's order was not perverse or arbitrary. The Court noted that the authority had followed the procedure contemplated by Rule 72 and had assigned a reason which was sufficient. The High Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench consisting of Justice V.G. Palshikar and Justice Smt. Nishita Mhatre on February 15, 2005.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Treatment of Suspension Period After Acquittal - Rule 72 of Maharashtra Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1956 - The petitioner, a police employee, was suspended during criminal prosecution and acquitted. The authority, after following procedure under Rule 72, treated the suspension period as suspension. The Tribunal upheld the order. The High Court held that the authority had followed the procedure and assigned sufficient reasons, and the Tribunal's order was not perverse or arbitrary. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Police Commissioner treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as the period of suspension, after his acquittal in criminal trial, is valid and whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's challenge.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the Police Commissioner's order treating the suspension period as suspension.
Law Points
- Suspension period treatment after acquittal
- Rule 72 of Maharashtra Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules
- 1956
- Sufficiency of reasons
- Scope of judicial review
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 388
Writ Petition No.4961 of 1998
V.G. Palshikar, Smt. Nishita Mhatre
Mr.D.A. Nalawade for Petitioner, Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
The State of Maharashtra through its Home Secretary, The Commissioner of Police, Thane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which upheld the Police Commissioner's order treating the suspension period as suspension.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order treating his suspension period as suspension and to have the period treated as duty or otherwise not as suspension.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was suspended during criminal prosecution, acquitted, reinstated, but the authority treated the suspension period as suspension after show cause notice.
Previous Decisions
The Police Commissioner passed an order under Rule 72 treating the suspension period as suspension. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal rejected the petitioner's challenge summarily.
Issues
Whether the order of the Police Commissioner treating the suspension period as suspension after acquittal was valid under Rule 72.
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his acquittal was clear and no witnesses deposed against him, so the suspension period should not be treated as suspension.
Respondents argued that the procedure under Rule 72 was followed and sufficient reasons were assigned.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1956, the authority may treat the period of suspension as suspension even after acquittal, provided the procedure of show cause is followed and sufficient reasons are assigned. The Tribunal's order rejecting the challenge was not perverse or arbitrary and does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal rejecting the challenge of the Petitioner to the order passed by the Police Commissioner under Rule 72 of the relevant Rules treating the period of suspension of the Petitioner as the period of suspension.
The procedure contemplated by Rule 72 referred to above was duly followed and a reason which is sufficient was assigned by the authority for passing the order.
Procedural History
The petitioner was suspended during criminal prosecution. After acquittal and reinstatement, the Police Commissioner issued a show cause notice and passed an order under Rule 72 treating the suspension period as suspension. The petitioner challenged this order before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which rejected the application summarily. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1956: Rule 72
