The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's decision to reinstate a Tahsildar, suspended for alleged inaction against illegal mining, was quashed. The High Court ruled that suspension during disciplinary proceedings is valid if prima facie misconduct exists. Subsequent government resolutions waiving penalties cannot nullify prior lapses of duty.

The Tribunal's reliance on a government resolution, which was stayed by another court, to reinstate the official was misplaced. The High Court held that disciplinary proceedings should assess the alleged misconduct without influence from such resolutions.

1. Case Background

• Petitions: Writ Petition No. 3795/2024 (State) and Writ Petition No. 12280/2024 (Ramesh Mundlod).
• Respondents: Jyoti Pawar, suspended Tahsildar, challenged her suspension before the Tribunal, which reinstated her.

2. Grounds of Suspension

• Alleged failure to act against illegal mining under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
• Mining occurred on cooperative sugar factory land, used for constructing the Samruddhi Highway.

3. Tribunal’s Order

• Found suspension unjustified and quashed it based on a government resolution waiving penalties for such illegalities.

4. Issues Identified

1. Whether the suspension was valid despite the government resolution waiving penalties for similar acts.
2. Whether the Tribunal overlooked relevant facts, including the stay on the government resolution.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 - Rule 4(1)(a): Grounds for suspension.
2. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Provisions for taking action against illegal mining.
3. Constitution of India - Article 226: Scope of judicial review in administrative matters.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Prima Facie Case: Suspension is valid when prima facie evidence of misconduct exists, pending full inquiry.
2. Stay on Resolution: Reliance on a government resolution, already stayed, renders the Tribunal's order unsustainable.
3. Subsequent Policy Irrelevance: A policy change waiving penalties does not absolve prior lapses in duty.
4. Judicial Review Limits: Courts must not interfere with administrative suspensions unless proven arbitrary or mala fide.

Subjects:
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Actions, Judicial Review, Suspension during Inquiry.

• Administrative Tribunal
• Suspension Orders
• Illegal Mining
• Samruddhi Highway Project
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Judicial Review Limits