Bombay High Court
Dilip Haribhau Surwade vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 14 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.2994.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 2994 /2016
Dilip Haribhau Surwade
Aged about 45 years
Occu: Service as Police Constable
in City Kotwali Police Station
Akola, R/o Sandesh Nagar, Washim Road,
Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The Superintendent of Police,
Akola,Dist. Akola.
3) The Special Inspector General of Police
Amravati Range, Amravati
Dist. Amravati. .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
None present for the petitioner
Ms. Ritu Kalia, Assistant Government Pleader for
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 14 July, 2016
th
JUDGMENT: (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
1. None present for the petitioner. Heard Mrs. Ritu Kalia, the
wp.2994.16
learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 15th
February, 2016 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the
Application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the
Original Application and rejecting the Original Application for a direction to
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Police Constable, with
4.
benefits of continuity of service and back wages.
The petitioner was employed as a Police Constable since
1.10.1991 within the jurisdiction of respondent no.2/Superintendent of
Police, Akola. An offence was registered against the petitioner at City Police
Station, Akola on 23.12.2008, under Section 7 (13) (1) (d) read with Section
13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The petitioner is under
suspension vide order dated 23.12.2008, till date. The petitioner filed
representations for revocation of his suspension, however, the same was
rejected by the order dated 17.04.2014. Hence, the petitioner filed the Original
Application bearing Stamp No.75/2016 before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur. The petitioner also filed an Application for condonation of
delay bearing Civil Application No.40/2016. The same was rejected by the
Tribunal vide order dated 15.2.2016, which is impugned in this Petition.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not only
challenged the order of suspension of 2008 but has also challenged the order
wp.2994.16
refusing to revoke the suspension, dated 17.04.2014. It is stated that the delay
in challenging the order dated 17.04.2014 is small and the same could have
been condoned as the petitioner was out of service for a long time and was
making representations.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Miss Ritu Kalia,
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 supported the impugned
order but she fairly stated that the Tribunal appears to have lost sight of the
fact that the petitioner had also challenged the order of rejection of
representation dated 17.04.2014.
7. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader and on
a perusal of the impugned order, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not
justified in rejecting the Civil Application and consequently the Original
Application filed by the petitioner. As regards the Application for condonation
of delay, the Tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioner had not
only challenged the order of suspension of 2008 but had also challenged the
order rejecting the application for revocation of suspension, dated 17.04.2014.
The Tribunal ought not have considered the delay from 2008 but ought to
have considered it, only from 17.04.2014. The delay after 17.04.2014 was
not much and the same could have been condoned in the circumstances of the
case. The order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the delay needs to
be condoned.
8. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
wp.2994.16
Application for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application is
allowed. The Tribunal is directed to decide the Original Application, on
merits.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
wp.2994.16
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare
P.S.
Uploaded on: 21.07.2016.
