The employer's power to suspend an employee during disciplinary proceedings must be justified by material evidence, especially after significant delays.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 29/10/2024 passed by the learned Administrative Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No.849 of 2024. By the said judgment, the aforesaid Original Application preferred by the petitioner raising a challenge to the order of suspension issued to him on 11/07/2024 as well as to the order of transfer dated 16/07/2024 of respondent no.5 on the post held by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

2. Facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised are that the petitioner is serving on the post of Tahasildar with the Department of Revenue and Forests of the State Government. By order dated 16/06/2023, the petitioner came to be transferred from the post of Tahasildar, Mohol District Solapur to an equivalent post at Khed, District Pune. While the petitioner was serving at Khed, a chargesheet was issued to him on 22/08/2023 in the departmental proceedings initiated against him. When the said enquiry proceedings were pending, the petitioner’s services were placed under suspension by an order dated 11/07/2024. Shortly thereafter, the respondent no.5 who was serving on the post of Tahasildar and Assistant Rehabilitation Officer, Vadivale Project District Pune came to be transferred to the post of Tahasildar, Khed, District Pune which had fallen vacant on account of the petitioner’s suspension. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.849 of 2024. In the said proceedings, the petitioner made a prayer for grant of interim relief by staying the order of suspension. As the prayer for interim relief was not being considered, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.9959 of 2024 raising a challenge to the order dated 15/07/2024. Though the proceedings in the writ petition were adjourned to enable the prayer for interim relief to be considered, the Original Application after being heard by the learned Member on 12/08/2024 was adjourned for passing final orders. Ultimately, the Original Application was dismissed on29/10/2024. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. S.B. Talekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was serving on the post of Tahsildar, Khed, District Pune interference was sought to be caused in his discharge of duties by the respondent no.4, Member of the Legislative Assembly from Khed-Alandi. As the petitioner did not oblige the respondent no.4, he was threatened by him on various occasions. He submitted that the respondent no.4 directed the petitioner to make a request for being transferred elsewhere so as to accommodate the respondent no.5 on the said post. He invited attention to the averments made in paragraphs 13 to 22 of the writ petition in that regard. Though a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 22/08/2023, he was not placed under suspension and he continued to discharge his regular duties. In the meanwhile, the transfer of respondent no.5 on the post held by the petitioner was recommended by the respondent no.4 on 17/01/2024. The matter was considered by the Civil Services Board sometime in March 2024 but the proposal to transfer the petitioner and the respondent no.5 inter-se came to be dropped. Shortly thereafter, the Code of Conduct in view of the ensuing general elections commenced and the petitioner continued to discharge duties on the post of Tahasildar, Khed District Pune. It was submitted that after a period of about one year from the issuance of the chargesheet, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11/07/2024. There was no reason whatsoever to place the petitioner under suspension considering the nature of charges levelled against him. Assuming that the petitioner was found guilty of the same, only a minor penalty was liable to be imp