Facts
The Petitioner, a Medical Officer with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), was suspended by an order dated 07.05.2026 with retrospective effect from 04.05.2026
Source reference: p. 1-3This followed a complaint by a former Parliamentarian regarding irregularities in birth certificates and a subsequent FIR where the Petitioner was notably not named as an accused
Source reference: p. 3Procedurally, the Corporation had initiated a preliminary enquiry in 2025 with three charges, then discarded it on 09.03.2026 to issue a fresh memorandum with an additional fourth charge for a full-fledged departmental enquiry
Source reference: p. 5Before the fresh charges were served or a new preliminary enquiry conducted, the suspension order was issued
Source reference: p. 17The Petitioner challenged the suspension as being procedurally flawed and influenced by external political pressure
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the Municipal Corporation can exercise the power of suspension under Rule 4(A) in isolation from the procedural requirements of Rule 4(B) of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2015
Source reference: p. 112. Whether the suspension order dated 07.05.2026 was legally valid given the failure to follow the preliminary enquiry procedure mandated by Rule 4(B)(5)
Source reference: p. 15Law Applied
Rule 4(A) provides the source of power for an Appointing or Disciplinary Authority to place an employee under suspension when a proceeding is contemplated or pending
Source reference: p. 6Rule 4(B) mandates a "Preliminary Enquiry" procedure, specifically Rule 4(B)(5), which requires the Competent Authority to perusal the preliminary enquiry report and material to decide whether a prima-facie case exists and whether suspension pending a departmental enquiry is necessary
Source reference: p. 10The court applied the "Golden Rule of Interpretation," holding that provisions must be read such that no part is rendered otiose or nugatory
Source reference: p. 13Reasoning
The Court rejected the Corporation’s contention that Rule 4(A) grants unfettered stand-alone power to suspend. It reasoned that Rule 4(A) identifies **who** holds the power, while Rule 4(B) prescribes the **manner** in which that power must be exercised
Source reference: p. 18The Court observed that the Corporation had abandoned its initial preliminary enquiry and reverted to the square-one stage of Rule 4(B)(2) by framing new charges. By skipping the mandatory steps in Rule 4(B)(4) and (5)—which require a report and a considered decision on the necessity of suspension based on that report—the Corporation acted with "undue haste"
Source reference: p. 15The Court noted that the suspension appeared to be a reaction to a former Parliamentarian’s premature announcement of the suspension on 02.05.2026, rather than a result of the internal procedural safeguards intended to prevent unnecessary suspensions
Source reference: p. 17-18Holding
The Court answered that Rule 4(A) must be read in tandem with Rule 4(B). It held that the suspension order was procedurally terminal for failing to follow Rule 4(B)(5)
The High Court quashed and set aside the suspension order dated 07.05.2026 and directed the Petitioner’s reinstatement with full salary for the suspension period. However, the Court clarified that the Corporation remains at liberty to proceed with the fresh departmental enquiry under the 2015 Rules from the stage of Rule 4(B)(4) onwards
Source reference: p. 19Original Court PDF
Dr Shailendra Dattatray GujarvsThe State Of Maharashtra Through Gp Os
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in