Case Note & Summary
Two employees of Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Dr. Dilip Kajale and Dr. Prakash Vankhade, who held positions as Assistant Professor and Associate Professor and also served as Associate Deans, were suspended by the Chancellor of the Institute on 17 October 2025 following a complaint by a colleague, Naresh Bodkhe. The incident arose on 5 May 2025 when the petitioners visited Bodkhe's office to address alleged defamatory remarks. Bodkhe filed a complaint on 6 May 2025. The petitioners received a notice on 8 May 2025 and submitted written explanations on 10 May 2025. Despite no further response, they continued their duties. The suspension orders barred them from the Institute's premises but provided subsistence allowance. The petitioners claimed that under a Government Resolution dated 22 April 2025 and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, suspension cannot extend beyond three months without initiation of an inquiry or a reasoned order for extension. The three-month period expired on 17 January 2026 without any communication extending the suspension. The petitioners sought revocation, asserting the incident was unrelated to Institute functioning and fabricated. A prior writ petition (No. 3185 of 2026) was filed; the court directed the Chancellor to treat it as an appeal and pass a reasoned order. During its pendency, charge-sheets were served on 16 April 2026. The Chancellor, by order dated 4 June 2026, directed continuation of the inquiry proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed fresh writ petitions challenging both the suspension orders and the continuation order. In the present proceedings, they pressed only the challenge to the suspension orders, raising the core issue of whether such orders could extend beyond three months without service of charge-sheet and without a reasoned extension order. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, which held that a suspension order should not continue beyond three months if no charge-sheet is served, and a reasoned order is required for extension. They also cited the Government Resolution dated 22 April 2025 and the Bombay High Court's decision in Kiran Ramesh Waghela v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The respondents argued that the delay in issuing the charge-sheet was due to the Executive Council not meeting within three months; the council met on 20 March 2026 and approved the charge-sheet, which was issued on 16 April 2026. They contended that the Government Resolution permits extension if a decision is taken to extend the suspension. The matter was heard and reserved for judgment on 22 July 2026; the available text of the judgment is incomplete and does not contain the court's analysis, decision, or ratio decidendi. Consequently, the final outcome and legal reasoning remain unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned suspension orders can extend beyond three months if the charge sheet has not been filed and/or served on the Petitioners within the said period of three months and/or no reasoned order passed during that period for extension of the suspension.
Law Points
- Suspension order should not extend beyond three months if memorandum of charges/charge-sheet not served on delinquent employee
- reasoned order must be passed for extension beyond three months
- Government Resolution dated 22 April 2025 mandates reinstatement if departmental or judicial inquiry not initiated within three months of suspension
- compliance with principles of natural justice required in disciplinary proceedings
