Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
Yogesh Kashinath Patil - Appellant
Versus
SGV and SSPS Arts, Commerce and Science College - Respondents
Writ Petition No.14687 of 2024
Decided on : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sandesh D. Patil i/b Mr. Prithviraj Gole for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Tanoj Joshi a/w Shivani Gautam a/w Sumit Pal a/w Shashikant Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6. Mr. Pavan Patil a/w Mr. Nitin Jagtap for the Applicant. Ms. Ashwini Purav, AGP for the State/Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Suspension of an employee without initiating disciplinary proceedings is unlawful and violates due process rights.
Headnote:
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Suspension of Employee - The court considered the legality of the suspension order dated 16th August, 2024, which lacked initiation of disciplinary proceedings - It is established that an employer does not have an inherent right to suspend without due process (Paras 3, 4, 12).
(B) Suspension Types - The judgment clarifies the distinction between suspension pending inquiry and suspension as punishment post-inquiry (Paras 5, 6).
(C) High-Handed Conduct - The court noted the management's failure to pay suspension allowance and to initiate disciplinary proceedings, indicating high-handedness (Paras 13).
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was suspended on allegations of unauthorized absence without a charge-sheet or disciplinary inquiry, leading to a Writ Petition challenging the suspension.
Findings of Court:
The suspension order was quashed due to lack of due process, and the Petitioner was entitled to suspension allowance.
Issues: The key issue was whether the suspension was legally justified without a disciplinary inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that suspension without a charge-sheet or inquiry is invalid and emphasized the obligation of the employer to follow due process.
Result: The Writ Petition is allowed, and the suspension order is quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(Per Ravindra V Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses a, b, c, and d, as under:-
“a. By an appropriate Writ direction or the order of the Hon’ble Court, the letter dated 16/08/2024 and 12/09/2024 (annexed to the present Writ petition at Exh ‘E’ and Exh. ‘F’ respectively) issued by the Chairman of the Respondent no. 2 Trust be declared to be illegal, null and void, and be quashed and set aside and the Petitioner be reinstated on the post which she was removed.
b. By an appropriate writ direction order Hon’ble Court, the Respondent no. 3 and 5 be directed to take appropriate action against the Respondent no. 6 for issuing the said communications/letter dated 16/08/2024 and 12/09/2024 upon the Petitioner and illegally suspending the Petitioner from the post on which she was appointed with Respondent no.1 Institution.
c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the effect execution and implementation of the said letters/communication dated 16/08/2024 so also the latest of communication dated 12/09/2024 (annexed to the present Writ petition at Exh. ‘E’ and Exh. ‘F’ respectively) be stayed/ suspended and the Petitioner, be reinstated and the remuneration along with the arrears, be released forthwith;
d. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Respondent no.3 to 5 be directed to take appropriate action against the Respondent No.6 for issuing the said communications/letter dated 16/08/2024 and 12/09/2024 upon the Petitioner and illegally suspending the Petitioner from the post on which she was appointed with Respondent no.1 Institution;”
3. A short issue for consideration before us is, as to whether the Impugned suspension of the Petitioner vide order dated 16th August, 2024 can be said to be legally continued without initiation of any departmental enquiry.
4. It is settled law that though an Employer does not have an inherent right to suspend an Employee, he can suspend an Employee in certain circumstances and is obliged to pay subsistence allowance. In the present case, the suspension allowance is also not paid to the Petitioner, ever since his suspension.
5. It is also settled law that there are two types of suspensions. Suspension pending disciplinary enquiry is one type and suspension by way of punishment after disciplinary enquiry, is the second type.
6. It is undisputed that the Petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 16th August, 2024. We have perused the Impugned order which indicates that there is an allegation against the Petitioner that he has been unauthorizedly absent from 24th June, 2024. Considering the said absence, the Petitioner has been placed under suspension. He was informed that he should not mark his presence in the college during the period of suspension and he would be independently informed about the commencement of a departmental enquiry. On 12th September, 2024 the Petitioner was once again issued with a communication wherein it is alleged that though he was suspended, he visited the college on 6th September, 2024 and he marked his presence on the muster book. It is alleged against him that he has committed a grave misconduct.
7. The Petitioner is said to be the son-in-law of the erstwhile Chairperson of the Institution/Trust namely, Mr. Vasant Patil. Presently, Respondent No.6 namely, Mr. Milind Vasant Patil, son of Mr. Vasant Patil, claims to be the Chairman of the Institution/Trust. The biological sister of Respondent No.6 and daughter of the erstwhile Chairperson, is the wife of the present Petitioner. The father of Respondent No.6 (erstwhile Chairman) is before this Court through the Intervention Application, contending that Respondent No.6 is not the Chairperson of the Trust and the change report is contested before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. However, it is conceded that as on date, the name of Respondent No.6 is entered in
