Suspension of Employee Without Enquiry Held Invalid; Employer Obligated to Pay Subsistence Allowance - Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension Order.

sketch of the Bombay High Court
Case
YOGESH KASHINATH PATIL v. SGV AND SSPS ARTS COMMERCE AND SCIENCE COLLEGE THROU. ITS PRINCIPAL AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 25-03-2025)
Law
Indian Penal Code, Writ Petition, Service Law.
  • Facts: Yogesh Kashinath Patil, an employee of SGV and SSPS Arts, Commerce and Science College, was suspended on August 16, 2024, for alleged unauthorized absence from June 24, 2024. He was not paid his suspension allowance. The petitioner is the son-in-law of the erstwhile Chairperson of the Institution/Trust. Respondent No. 6, Milind Vasant Patil, the son of the erstwhile Chairperson, claims to be the Chairman of the Institution/Trust. Respondent No. 6 also filed an FIR against the Petitioner and his family members.
  • Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay challenging his suspension. The court is considering whether the suspension can be legally continued without initiating a departmental enquiry.
  • Issue: Can the suspension of the Petitioner be legally continued without the initiation of any departmental enquiry, and is the employer obligated to pay subsistence allowance during the suspension period?
  • Holding: No, the suspension cannot be legally continued without initiating a departmental enquiry. The Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order of suspension is quashed. The Petitioner is entitled to the suspension allowance for the period of suspension until reinstatement, to be paid within 30 days.
  • Reasoning: The Court noted that while an employer can suspend an employee in certain circumstances, they are obliged to pay subsistence allowance, which was not done in this case. The Court also emphasized that the Petitioner had been suspended for over seven months without a charge-sheet being issued. The court found the Management's excuse for not initiating disciplinary proceedings (that the Petition was pending) to be "lame and a fallacious reason". The court clarified that the Management is at liberty to commence disciplinary proceedings, but without prejudice to the Petitioner's rights.