The tribunal's quashing of a suspension order was arbitrary as it ignored ongoing misconduct allegations despite a stayed government resolution waiving penalties.

JUDGMENT :

(Mangesh S. Patil, J.) :

Heard both the sides in both the petitions. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service. At the joint request of the parties, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. In both these writ petitions, there is a common challenge to the judgment and order dated 24-11-2023 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application no. 792 of 2023, whereby, the original application preferred by respondent no. 1 from writ petition no. 3795 of 2024, which is arrayed as respondent no. 4 in the other writ petition, had put up a challenge to the order of her suspension dated 14-07-2023 issued by respondent no. 2, who is the Additional Secretary of the Revenue and Forest Department of the Maharashtra State, whereby, it has quashed and set aside the suspension and directed to forthwith reinstate her on the post from which she was suspended. The state has put up a challenge to this order of the tribunal in writ petition no. 3795 of 2024.

3. Pursuant to the order of suspension, the petitioner from writ petition no. 12280 of 2024 was posted in her place and resumed the office on 06-09-2023. Since he was not a party to the original application, he is now challenging the order of the tribunal on the premise that implementation of the order of the tribunal would displace him.

4. As can be gathered, the issue in hand to the extent of petitioner in writ petition no. 12280 of 2024, is limited. Though he was not a party before the tribunal which passed the order under challenge and its implementation gives rise for him to a cause of action, inasmuch as he would be displaced from the post pursuant to the suspension of the original applicant, as laid down in the matter of K. Ajit Babu and others Vs. Union of India and others; (1997) 6 S.C.C. 473, the remedy for him would be to apply for review, by making an appropriate application to the tribunal or to prefer an independent original application.

5. Even if it is a matter that the impugned judgment and order is germane to his apprehended transfer, in our considered view, though he is aggrieved by and threatened of the transfer pursuant to the order of the tribunal, that would not give rise to any cause for him to challenge the impugned judgment and order and does not have any locus standi to challenge the order of the tribunal to the extent it has quashed suspension of the other petitioner, by resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India when he was not a party before the tribunal. Precisely to meet such a contingency, the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Ajit Babu (supra), in paragraph no. 5 has observed as under :-

“5. The Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant merely on the ground that the appellant was seeking setting aside of the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of PS. John (supra) in TA No. 263 of 1986. It is here that the Tribunal apparently fell in error. No doubt the decision of the Tribunal in the case P.S. John was against the appellant but the application filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Act has to be dealt with in accordance with law.”

6. In view of such trite law, writ petition no. 12280 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed, keeping open the avenue for that petitioner to resort to the remedy as indicated in K. Ajit Babu (supra), if needed.

7. This takes us to the challenge to the impugned judgment and order at the instance of the State. One need not elaborate the facts in detail and it would suffice to observe that the petitioner - original applicant was suspended under Rule 4(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, on the ground that while working as the Tahsildar, Aurangabad (Rural) since 01-03-2021. She had failed to take suitable action and it was further directed that during the period of suspension, her headquarter would be the office of the Collector at A