Mohan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Operative part
Shri. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. -------- Shri. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE: 11th SEPTEMBER 2012 PER COURT : 1) 2) Heard. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts of the case suspension of the petitioner was not warranted. The petitioner is innocent. The record shows that the petitioner was not responsible for alleged entry due to which the petitioner has been 2 W.P.7612 of 2012 kept under suspension. The learned counsel places reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Bimala Kumar Mohanty, AIR 1994 SC 2296 in support of his contention. 3) We have perused the impugned order of suspension, the judgment cited supra and other relevant documents placed on record. 4) In the facts of the case the Chief Executive Officer decided to suspend the petitioner as Gram Sevak for taking wrong entries in the register in respect of Gairan land and for negligence in discharge of his duties. The petitioner would get adequate opportunity at an appropriate stage to put forth his case. At this stage no interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. All issues are kept open. 5) The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
(NARESH H PATIL, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Sep 2012. The bench was T V NALAWADE, NARESH H PATIL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.