Bombay High Court
JITENDRA MANOHAR HANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHARMILA U DESHMUKH
Holding
The appellate authority must consider the declaration relief and the impugned order is quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Manohar Hane, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority which had only addressed the charges against him and modified the penalty, but failed to consider his request for a declaration that his suspension from 27 August 2017 to 25 July 2019 was invalid. The High Court observed that the appellate authority had not recorded any finding on the declaration relief and that the impugned order contained no discussion of this issue. Consequently, the Court held that the order must be quashed and remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider all issues, including the validity of the suspension, and to give detailed findings. The Court also directed that the matter be dealt with expeditiously given the petitioner's impending superannuation. The writ petition was disposed of after setting aside the impugned order and ordering a fresh hearing before the Appellate Authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the Appellate Authority erred by not considering the petitioner's relief seeking a declaration that the period of suspension was invalid
- Whether the impugned order should be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration of all issues
Subjects
- suspension
- administrative law
- appellate authority
- writ petition
- quashing
- remand
- declaration
- penalty
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:13887
20 WP 16093-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16093 OF 2023
Jitendra Manohar Hane ... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary For ... Respondents.
Rural Development Department and Ors.
—————
Mr Govind B. Solanke, for the Appellants.
Ms Pratibha J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.
—————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : March 18, 2026
P.C. :
1. Despite service and the matter being adjourned for time to
time, none appears on behalf of he Respondent No.3 - Zilla
Parishad, Pune and hence, the petition was taken up for hearing.
Apart from other submissions canvassed, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority
has not considered the relief of declaration that the period of
suspension from 27th August, 2017 to 25th July, 2019 is invalid and
to be set aside.
2. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
Appellate Authority has recorded 9ndings only on the charges
framed against the Petitioner and has partly allowed the Appeal,
modifying the penalty imposed by the Chief Executive O;cer, Zilla
sa_mandawgad 1 of 2
20 WP 16093-23.doc
Parishad. The relief as regards declaration that the period of
suspension is invalid has not been considered by the Appellate
Authority. There is no discussion about the same in the impugned
order and no 9nding is recorded by the Appellate Authority. The
appropriate course would be to remand the matter to Appellate
Authority to enable the Authority to render 9ndings on all issues.
3. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to be
considered afresh and to render detailed 9ndings on all issues.
Considering that the Petitioner is nearing the age of
superannuation, the Appellate Authority is requested to decide the
Appeal expeditiously.
4. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
sa_mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
2 of 2
Date: 24/03/2026 14:18:39
Checking your session…