Division Bench Holds Suspension under Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Rules is Independent of Preliminary Enquiry, Overruling Earlier View; Issues Directions for Expedited Enquiry and Subsistence Allowance
In a significant judgment dated October 21, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench) examined the contentious issue regarding the suspension of employees under the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2015. The Court considered whether a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4(B) is mandatory before suspending a Corporation employee under Rule 4(A).
The petitions before the Court challenged the suspension orders of two Corporation employees - Pradip Pralhadrao Kashale and Dr. Sanjay Dattatraya Funde - by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC). The petitioners contended that suspension could only be ordered after a preliminary enquiry as mandated by Rule 4(B). However, the BMC defended the suspension orders, relying on Rule 4(A), which authorizes suspension under specific conditions.
The Division Bench - comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Dr. Neela Gokhale - scrutinized the relevant Rules 4(A) and 4(B). Rule 4(A) empowers the appointing or disciplinary authority to suspend an employee under three independent clauses: (a) when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending; (b) where the employee is engaged in activities prejudicial to the Corporation's interest; and (c) where a criminal case is under investigation, enquiry, or trial. Rule 4(B), on the other hand, provides for a preliminary enquiry before a full departmental enquiry, allowing the authority to decide if suspension is necessary pending such enquiry.
Earlier, a co-ordinate Bench in Dr. Shailendra Dattatray Gujar v. State of Maharashtra had interpreted these provisions to require a mandatory preliminary enquiry before suspension. The current Division Bench respectfully disagreed with that interpretation. It held that Rules 4(A) and 4(B) are distinct and independent provisions. The language of Rule 4(A) does not indicate that suspension must be preceded by a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4(B). Particularly, clause 4(A)(1)(b), which allows suspension if the authority opines that the employee's activities are prejudicial, stands independently and does not hinge upon a preliminary enquiry.
The Court emphasized that the Rules do not prescribe that the operation of Rule 4(A) be contingent upon Rule 4(B), and reading such a requirement would introduce provisions not found in the Rule's plain language. Therefore, the Division Bench declined to follow the earlier co-ordinate Bench view and referred the question to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination. The two questions framed for the Larger Bench are:
1. Whether Rule 4(A) is a stand-alone provision or dependent on Rule 4(B) for suspension orders.
2. Whether suspension under Rule 4(A), especially clause (1)(b), falls within the ambit of Rule 4(B)(5)(b).
In the interim, the Court addressed the immediate concerns of the petitioners. It directed the BMC to pay the subsistence allowance to petitioner Pradip Kashale, which had not been paid since May 2026, by October 22, 2026, and to file a compliance report. The Court refused interim protection from suspension, noting that charge-sheets had already been issued. However, it urged the Corporation and the petitioners to expedite the departmental enquiry and complete it by January 31, 2027, keeping all contentions open.
This judgment clarifies that while procedural safeguards like preliminary enquiry are important, the power to suspend an employee under the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Rules can be exercised independently when sufficient material exists. The referral to a Larger Bench promises a definitive interpretation that will impact the disciplinary mechanisms within the Corporation.
The judgment also underscores the need for timely payment of subsistence allowance and speedy completion of departmental enquiries to protect the rights of suspended employees while safeguarding the Corporation's interests.
Bottom Line:
Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2015 - Suspension of Corporation employee - Whether preliminary enquiry under Rule 4(B) is mandatory before suspension under Rule 4(A) - Division Bench prima facie held Rule 4(A) and Rule 4(B) to be distinct and independent provisions and disagreed with earlier co-ordinate Bench view holding preliminary enquiry mandatory - Issue referred to Larger Bench.
Statutory provision(s):
Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2015 - Rule 4(A), Rule 4(B)
