Back
2015 Supreme(Guj) 344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Hiteshkumar Jashwantsinh Taparia (Chief Fire Officer, Vadodara Municipal Corporation) - Appellants
Vs.
Municipal Commissioner - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 9185 of 2015
Decided On: 26.06.2015
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:K.B. Pujara, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Maulik G. Nanavati, Advocate
The employer has the right to suspend an employee pending departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings, and the public interest is the paramount consideration in such cases.
Headnote:
Suspension - Service Jurisprudence - Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1971, Section 5, Section 229 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to suspension, including the types of suspension, the power of the employer to suspend, and the circumstances under which an employee can be suspended. The court emphasized the public interest as the paramount consideration in such cases and highlighted the need for periodic review of the suspension order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Chief Fire Officer, was suspended by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation following criminal allegations of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, arguing that no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and that the suspension was unjustified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension was justified given the nature of the allegations and the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner. The court emphasized the public interest as the paramount consideration in such cases and upheld the suspension order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension of the petitioner was justified in light of the criminal allegations and the absence of pending disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employer has the right to suspend an employee pending departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings, and emphasized the need for periodic review of the suspension order. The court also highlighted the public interest as the paramount consideration in such cases.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's application, upholding the suspension order and emphasizing the need for periodic review of the suspension in accordance with the law.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a suspended Chief Fire Officer, Vadodara Municipal Corporation has prayed for the following reliefs:--
"(a) to quash and set aside the impugned order of suspension dtd. 30-05-2015 passed by the respondent as per Annexure-M;
(b) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITIN, BE PLEASED to say the further operation of the impugned order of suspension dtd. 30-05-2015 passed by the respondent as per Annexure - M, and to allow the petitioner to discharge duties and to draw salaries as he was doing prior to the passing of the said order;
(c) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondent to revoke the impugned order of suspension dtd. 30-05-2015 passed by him as per Annexure-M;
(d) to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s."
2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under:--
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Station Officer in the Fire Brigade Department of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 4.01.1986. He was promoted as the Deputy Chief Fire Officer in the year 2004 and further promoted as the Chief Fire Officer on 1.05.2007.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that a disgruntled union leader namely one Shri Manoj Panday, made an application to the Vigilance Commission, Gujarat State levelling allegations of assets disproportionate to the known sources of the income of the petitioner. A First Information Report in that regard came to be registered against the petitioner at the Vadodara City ACB Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide I C.R. No. 1 of 2014.
5. The petitioner apprehending arrest by the ACB Prayed for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. However, the prayer for the anticipatory bail was declined by the Special Court. The petitioner came before this Court by way of a Criminal Misc. Application No. 4469 of 2014 and prayed for the anticipatory bail. This Court vide order dated 28th April, 2014 allowed the application and ordered the release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
6. The Corporation in the meantime passed the order dated 5th February, 2014 asking the petitioner to proceed on leave with effect from 6th February, 2014.
7. The Corporation also issued a show cause notice dated 5th February, 2014 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him under Section 56(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 for the alleged breach of Rule 3(1)(III) and Rule 19 of the Gujarat Service(conduct) Rules 1971. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 10th February, 2014 to the show cause notice.
8. After the grant of the anticipatory bail by this Court, the petitioner requested the corporation to allow him to resume his duty. The Corporation reconsidered the matter and permitted the petitioner to resume his duties vide order dated 9th July, 2014.
9. On 26th May, 2015, the Investigating Officer summoned the petitioner and completed the procedure of his arrest and release on bail, according to the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail.
10. The petitioner informed the corporation that he was formally arrested by the Investigating Officer of the ACB Police Station and pursuant to order of the High Court was released on bail.
11. The Corporation thereafter passed an order of suspension dated 30th May, 2015.
12. The petitioner has come up with this writ-application being aggrieved by the order of suspension.
13. Mr. K.B. Pujara, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order of suspension is totally unjustified and uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. Mr. Pujara submitted that according to the Rule-5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 the power of suspe
