The Competent Authority must exercise discretion and consider the circumstances before suspending an employee, as suspension is a drastic action with significant consequences.

K.R. Shriram, J.

1. This is a case of an employee of Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay Respondent No.1, who prays the suspension order against him be set aside and he be permitted to resume his duties.

2. The petitioner joined the Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay-respondent No.1 sometime in February 1992 as Multipurpose Worker in Health Department. He was appointed as Junior Secretarial Assistant (Marathi) in the Municipal Secretary's Department in May 2000 and was appointed as Inspector for Shop and Establishment in S-Ward, Bhandup in March 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the S-Ward covers a huge area where there are unbridled encroachment in the way of slums and unauthorised shops and in view of his taking action against these unauthorised slums/shops, he started receiving threats from two individuals - Arasu Gaudar and Ramesh Birwadkar (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Gaudar and Birwadkar). These two persons are alleged to be local goondas who act as agents/brokers for all those persons who are encroaching into municipal lands. Due to the continued threats and harassment from the said Gaudar and Birwadkar, the petitioner lodged complaint with the Assistant Commissioner (S-Ward) of respondent No.1 by a letter dated 3rd July 2012. However, no action was taken. It seems that the said Gaudar and Birwadkar had been also harassing the other staff in S-ward and predecessors of the petitioner who did not bend or succumb to their illegal threats. It seems sometimes in 2006, they had trapped one Senior Inspector by the name Shrikant T. Devalalkar in S-Ward in a false case through the Anti Corruption Bureau like they did to the Petitioner and the said Devlalkar who was suspended following that incident was acquitted in March 2010, almost four years later and has since then been reinstated by respondent No.1. It also appears that in view of the harassment by the said Gaudar and Birwadkar, staff of Sward had also lodged complaints with the Police Department.

3. It is the petitioner's case that on or about 16th July 2012, the said Gaudar and Birwadkar placed some money into the petitioner's pocket and framed him in an anti corruption trap. The petitioner was arrested but within less than 24 hours of his arrest, the petitioner was granted bail. In the bail order also the fact that the petitioner had lodged a complaint to his superior officer on 3rd July 2012 about harassment and threat of the said Gaudar and Birwadkar before he was trapped was taken into consideration.

4. The petitioner by his letter dated 18th July 2012 to the Assistant Commissioner (S-Ward) requested that he be permitted to resume duties. The petitioner had also relied upon a Circular dated 10th September 2007 issued by the first respondent whereby it is mentioned that 'under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1989, the Appointing Authority can suspend the Government servant who has been kept under detention for more than 48 hours in Police or Judicial Custody on criminal or other charges.' It is the petitioner's case that he was innocent and in any event he was granted bail within less than 24 hours of his arrest and therefore he should not be kept under any suspension, as, to be kept under suspension, the Government Servant has to be kept under detention for more than 48 hours.

5. Following this incident, the Assistant Commissioner (S-Ward), had submitted a confidential note dated 3rd August 2012 addressed to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Z-VI), Additional Municipal Commissioner (Shop and Establishment) and the Municipal Commissioner whereby it is confirmed that there have been complaints filed against the said Gaudar and Birwadkar and that even the petitioner had filed a complaint before he was trapped. It also appears that the Assistant Commissioner, S-Ward in effect feels that the petitioner was innocent and has been trapped by the said Gaudar and Birwadkar. The Assistant Commissioner sought permiss