Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Bhimrao Rohidas Ghadge on 1 March, 2024
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:9933-DB
Sayyed 19-WP-2574-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No.2574 OF 2024
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director General of Police,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Colaba,
Mumbai - 1.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Thane Central Ground, Thane. ..Petitioners
Verses
Bhimrao Rohidas Ghadge,
R/at - 1004, A type, B-Wing,
Wadhwas Medow, Bhorwadi,
Khadakpada, Kalyan (W),
Dist. Thane - 421 301. ..Respondent
__________
Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP for the Petitioners (State).
Mr. S. B. Talekar a/w Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan i/by Talekar & Associates
for the Respondent.
__________
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Date on which arguments were heard : 26th FEBRUARY 2024.
Date on which the judgment is pronounced : 1st MARCH 2024.
JUDGMENT:
(per Jitendra Jain, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
1 of 7
Sayyed 19-WP-2574-2024.doc
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the Petitioner-State (original "respondents" before Tribunal)
challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in OA No.273 of 2022 dated 22 nd
November 2023, whereby the Respondent's ("original applicant")
application to regularize the period of suspension from 23 rd August 2015
to 28th November 2018 was allowed with all consequential benefits.
Brief facts are as under :-
3. The Respondent joined the service of the Petitioner as Police
Sub-Inspector (PSI) in the year 1992 and was promoted as Assistant
Police Inspector in the year 2002 and was further promoted to the post
of Police Inspector in the year 2008.
4. On 23rd August 2015, the Respondent was suspended from the
service and the said suspension was revoked on 28 th November 2018.
Thereafter various representations were made by the Respondent to
regularize the suspension period, but since the Respondent did not
receive any favourable reply an OA was filed with the Tribunal being OA
No.402 of 2022. The said OA was disposed of by the Tribunal with a
direction to the Petitioner to decide the representation within six weeks.
On 16th February 2023, representation of the Respondent was rejected.
Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the Respondent filed an OA on
10th March 2023 before the Tribunal being OA No.273 of 2023.
2 of 7
Sayyed 19-WP-2574-2024.doc
5. On 22nd November 2023 the Tribunal allowed the said OA on
the ground that the suspension order was based on an offence in which
the Respondent has been exonerated and with respect to the other cases,
the Respondent has been either acquitted or discharged and no stay has
been obtained by the Petitioner in appeal against such acquittal /
discharge. It is on this backdrop that the present petition is before us.
6. The Petitioners submits that with respect to the acquittal
orders passed by the Court, an appeal is preferred by the Petitioners and
same is pending. However, the Petitioners fairly stated that there is no
stay to the order of acquittal by the Appellate Court. With respect to CR
No.48 of 2015 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the
Respondent is discharged by a detailed order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan on 21 st November 2022 since no
proper sanction was taken by the Petitioners before initiation of the
proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the
Petitioners were granted liberty to seek fresh sanction and proceed
against the Respondent. However, the Petitioners fairly submitted that
till today, no fresh sanction has been obtained for initiating proceeding
against the Respondent. The Petitioners submitted that since the
appeals against the acquittal are pending, the order passed to regularize
the suspension period by Tribunal is not justified and therefore the same
is required to be set aside.
3 of 7
Sayyed 19-WP-2574-2024.doc
7. Per contra, the Respondent submitted that suspension order is
based on CR No.48 of 2015 and since the Respondent is discharged in
the said proceedings and no fresh sanction has been obtained, no
interference is required in the order of the Tribunal and prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the
Respondent and with their assistance have perused the documents
annexed to the petition.
9. There is no dispute that on 26 th August 2015, an order was
passed by the Petitioners to suspend the Respondent from 23 rd August
2015 and the said order of suspension was revoked on 28 th November
2018. The suspension order was based on CR No.48 of 2015 under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The proceedings under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were adjudicated by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan and the Sessions Court on 21 st
November 2022 discharged the Respondent on the ground that the
Petitioners have not taken sanction of proper authority for initiating
proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However,
the Sessions Court granted liberty to the Petitioners to obtain fresh
sanction and proceed against the Respondent. However, although the
said order was passed on 21 st November 2022, till today the Petitioners
4 of 7
Sayyed 19-WP-2574-2024.doc
have not obtained any fresh sanction so as to proceed against the
Respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 although the
period of almost more than 1 year and 3 months have passed. If the
Petitioners were serious in proceeding with the charges under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Respondent then they would
have and ought to have expedited obtaining the sanction. This only
indicates that the Petitioners are not serious in pursuing proceedings
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10. It is further not disputed that the suspension order was based
on the aforesaid proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and the Respondent having been discharged in the said
proceedings, the whole basis of the suspension order falls to ground. It is
also well settled that reasons recorded in the suspension order cannot be
improvised by relying upon proceedings initiated subsequently against
the Respondent in other charges. The Petitioners submitted that there
cannot be more than 1 suspension order. However, the Petitioners could
have passed suspension order with respect to other criminal proceedings
against the Respondent and in that order they could have stated that the
period for which the earlier suspension order was passed would run
concurrently with subsequent orders. However, no such orders of
suspension running concurrently seems to have been passed by the
5 of 7
Sayyed 19-WP-2574-2024.doc
Petitioners. Therefore, reliance placed by the Petitioners with respect to
other proceedings against the Respondent to reverse the Tribunal's order
is erroneous.
11. The Respondent is justified in contending that in the
departmental enquiry proceedings with respect to CR No.48 of 2015
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 he was exonerated. If in
the departmental enquiry proceedings he was exonerated then when it
comes to proceedings in the Court under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 the probability of the Respondent being convicted becomes
bleak as held in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police & Anr 1. Therefore, since the Respondent is
found not to be guilty under the departmental enquiry proceedings, the
submission of the Petitioners that the sanction as directed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Kalyan is sought to be obtained loses its significance.
12. Even otherwise, with respect to other proceedings, the
Respondent has been acquitted / discharged by the Appellate Court vide
orders dated 3rd September 2022, 28th September 2022 and 29th
September 2022. Although the Petitioners have challenged the said
orders in appeal, but till today there is no adverse order against the
Respondent. Therefore even on this count, the contention of the
Petitioners to reverse the order of the Tribunal cannot be accepted.
1 Civil Appeal No.575 of 2020 decided on 8th September 2020
6 of 7
Sayyed 19-WP-2574-2024.doc
13. Viewed from any angle, in our opinion, the order passed by
the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse and therefore, no interference
is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
7 of 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/03/2024 15:01:39
