Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Professor of Cardiology Due to Inordinate Delay in Serving Chargesheet and Lack of Review. The court held that suspension cannot continue indefinitely without chargesheet or review, directing reinstatement.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 101
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Dr. Narender Omprakash Bansal, a Professor of Cardiology and Head of Department at Grant Medical College and Sir J.J. Group of Hospital, challenged his suspension order dated 29th May 2015 and the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 16th October 2015 in Original Application No.444 of 2015. The Tribunal had partly allowed the application but did not revoke the suspension. The petitioner had been suspended for four months without a chargesheet being served and without any review of the suspension. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had recorded that the suspension was causing hardship and that the State's conduct was not diligent. The court held that the power to suspend exists but must be exercised diligently, and that the suspension could not continue without a chargesheet or review. The court quashed the suspension order and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume duties forthwith, while leaving it open to the respondents to proceed with disciplinary action in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Suspension - Inordinate Delay in Serving Chargesheet - The suspension of a government servant cannot be continued indefinitely without serving a chargesheet or reviewing the need for continuation - The court held that the conduct of the State was not diligent and the suspension was causing hardship - The impugned order of the Tribunal was modified to direct revocation of suspension (Paras 3-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the suspension of the petitioner without serving chargesheet for four months and without review is sustainable in law

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is modified. The order of suspension dated 29th May 2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to resume duties forthwith. It is left open to the respondents to proceed with disciplinary action in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Suspension order cannot be continued indefinitely without serving chargesheet
  • Suspension must be reviewed periodically
  • Power to suspend must be exercised diligently
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016:BHC-AS:6800-DB

Writ Petition No.11987 of 2015

2016-03-11

D.H. Waghela, C.J., M.S. Sonak, J.

2016:BHC-AS:6800-DB

Mr. R.A. Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.D. Soni, Mr. Sujay Gawde, Mr. Kamal Bhatt and Mr. Ajay Sharma i/by Shree & Co. for Petitioner; Mr. C.P. Yadav, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents State

Dr. Narender Omprakash Bansal

The Additional Chief Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai; The Director, Medical Education and Research, St. George's Hospital, Mumbai; The Dean, Grant Medical College and Sir J.J. Group of Hospital, Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging suspension order and Tribunal's judgment

Remedy Sought

Quashing of suspension order dated 29th May 2015 and Tribunal's judgment dated 16th October 2015, and direction to allow petitioner to resume duties

Filing Reason

Petitioner was suspended without chargesheet being served for four months and without review of suspension

Previous Decisions

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal partly allowed Original Application No.444 of 2015 but did not revoke suspension

Issues

Whether suspension without serving chargesheet for four months is sustainable Whether the State's conduct in not reviewing suspension was diligent

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that suspension was causing hardship and no chargesheet was served despite four months Respondents argued that power to suspend exists and material justified suspension

Ratio Decidendi

Suspension cannot be continued indefinitely without serving a chargesheet or reviewing the need for continuation; the power to suspend must be exercised diligently.

Judgment Excerpts

The fact that the suspension is certainly the matter of hardship. Though suspension is not proved to be mala fide, the conduct of State is not shown or seen to be diligent. It is evident that though power to suspend exists and material to reach a conclusion as to need for suspension exists, the suspension cannot be continued indefinitely without serving a chargesheet or reviewing the need for continuation.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Original Application No.444 of 2015 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging suspension. Tribunal partly allowed the application on 16th October 2015 but did not revoke suspension. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.11987 of 2015 before Bombay High Court.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court at Goa Quashes CBI Court Order Directing FIR Registration in Corruption Case — Lack of Jurisdiction Under Section 156 CrPC. Special Judge Cannot Direct Investigation Without Complaint Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Professor of Cardiology Due to Inordinate Delay in Serving Chargesheet and Lack of Review. The court held that suspension cannot continue indefinitely without chargesheet or review, directing reinstatement.