Bombay HC refuses to quash tribunal’s order revoking suspension of senior police official – India Today

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) revoking the suspension and ordering the reinstatement of a senior police official, saying that suspension orders cannot be kept pending indefinitely.

The bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse dismissed a petition filed by a woman who had challenged the July 2022 order passed by MAT revoking the suspension of a superintendent of police level officer named Dhiraj Patil.

Patil, at the time of his suspension, held the post of executive director (security and enforcement) at the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd (MSEDCL), the Maharastra power utility firm.

The woman, a lawyer by profession had complained against Patil in July 2021 leveling allegations which were personal in nature. “The allegations made by the woman against Patil in her complaint are personal in nature. The petitioner has reserved her right to file a criminal complaint against him for offences punishable under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC,” the high court bench noted.

Pursuant to this complaint, a departmental enquiry was initiated against Patil in February 2022 and on March 2, 2022 he was placed under suspension. Patil challenged this suspension before MAT. MAT in it’s order had directed for the departmental enquiry initiated against Patil to be completed within three months.

MAT as well as the High Court bench refused to dwell into the allegations levelled by the woman and observed that the law on orders of suspension is well settled. The bench said that MAT has correctly concluded that the order of suspension cannot continue indefinitely and has hence ordered for the departmental enquiry to be completed in a time-bound manner.

“Thus, we find no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the MAT. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the MAT,” the bench said.

“What the petitioner seeks is nothing but the continuance of suspension of Patil possibly for some indefinite period. The petitioner has no such legally enforceable right to demand continuance of the suspension,” the high court said.