Chandrakant Tulshiram Jadhav v. The Election Commissioner Of India And Others

1 32-WP-9456-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9456 OF 2018 Chandrakant S/o Tulshiram Jadhav

...Petitioner

Versus

The Election Commissioner of India Through its Secretary and Os.

...Respondents

Mr. D.B. Thoke, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, ASG for Respondent No. 6 Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 2, to 5, 7, 9 and 10 Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent No. 8 Respondent Nos. 11 to 14, 16 served Respondent No. 15 served CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 7th MARCH, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

1.

The petitioner challenges the suspension order. 2.

Mr. Thoke, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the ground that criminal case was filed against the petitioner, the order of suspension is issued. The suspension is vindictive. Without any notice or hearing, the order of suspension has been issued. The Tahsildar has no legal right to file the complaint.

2 32-WP-9456-2018 3.

Mr. Desale, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that the departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and the charge sheet is also issued. 4.

The suspension is not punitive in nature. The same is pending departmental enquiry so as to conduct the enquiry in a fair manner.

5.

All conditions being satisfied, the petitioner would be entitled for the subsistence allowance. As the charge sheet is already issued, the respondents shall conclude the departmental enquiry expeditiously.

6.

If the departmental enquiry is not completed within a reasonable time, liberty to the petitioner to raise challenge to the suspension or avail alternate remedy available in law. 7.

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE mta