In doing so, the division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N Srikrishna took into cognisance a report filed by the then Joint commissioner of police, administration, T K Choudhury who had stated that the allegations of custodial torture levelled against Shaikh and DCP Digrajkar were baseless, and had recommended that they be taken back into service. While Digrajkar retired in suspension, Shaikh who decided to fight it out in court was directed to be reinstated within four weeks.

The matter related to a case of 1990, when Shaikh and Digrajkar had arrested Police Sub-Inspector Rajendra Sawant on charges of dacoity. Sawant who was taken into custody had, through his wife, complained that he had been beaten in custody by Shaikh and Digrajkar. Since the policedid not take any action on the allegation, Sawant moved Bombay High Court through a writ petition. However, the then Director General of Police, Vasant Saraf filed an affidavit claiming that the allegations were baseless and investigations against the PSI on dacoity charges were in progress.

However, Sawant pursued the matter in the Supreme Court and his special leave petition was disposed of when special counsel for the state Ram Jethmalani stated that a case against the duo will be registered and a chargesheet will be filed against them. The statement was recorded and the matter disposed of.

The case took an interesting twist when the then advocate general V R Manohar recalled the matter in the apex court and in an affidavit said the special counsel was not instructed to say anything about the chargesheet. The apex court, Manohar urged, could not rely on such a statement and the state could not be saddled with a direction based on it.

The SC however held that even if the statement were not taken intoconsideration, it would pass the same orders. Accordingly, in 1995, offences were registered against the duo under section 336 of the IPC and they were suspended.

Both approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT); which held that although their suspensions were illegal, there were no directions to reinstate them. T K Chaudhury had even recommended that they be taken back. However, with the change in the state government, the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance decided against the recommendation.

Shaikh then moved high court. Counsel for Shaikh, Nitin Dalvi argued that the suspension was not being revoked even though MAT had held that the allegations were baseless.

The bench maintained that the Supreme Court had laid down that it was not necessary to wait for criminal cases to conclude before taking back persons into service. Since the appointments of inspectors are done by the police commissioner, the latter was directed to take him back into duty.