Bhimrao S/O Purushottam Lanjewar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Vice Chairman And Managing Director Mumbai

1 wp4235.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4235 OF 2016 [Bhimrao s/o Purushottam Lanjewar .vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.V. Jagdale, counsel for the petitioner. ..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JULY 29, 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the circular, dated 2.4.2016 as far as it provides for continuing the order of suspension, if necessary, in a case where the employee, who is involved in grave and serious misconduct, secures a stay to the notice of termination/removal.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the said circular is contrary to the provisions of Regulation No.83 of the Regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. It is stated that under the Regulation, the suspension could be continued only for a period of ninety days. We do not find any merit in the only submission made on behalf of the petitioner for challenging the circular. As per Regulation No.83, the suspension period could be of ninety days and a person would be entitled to reinstatement, after the expiry of the period of ninety days, except in cases where the Corporation extends the suspension for a period of more than ninety days. In special circumstances, the Corporation is empowered under Regulation No.83 to extend the period of suspension beyond ninety days and hence it cannot be said that the circular is contrary to Regulation No.83 of the Regulations.

2 wp4235.16.odt Since we do not find any merit in the only submission that is canvassed before us, we dismiss the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande, PA

3 wp4235.16.odt C E R T I F I C A T E "I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order."

Uploaded by : A.S. Gulande, P.A. Uploaded on : 2.8.2016