Quashed

The Supdtd. Engineer Mah. State Electricity Dist. Co. and Ors. v. Milind Dashrath Jadhav

Bombay HC22 Nov 2011WP/7685/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.7685/11, a petition was filed to challenge an Industrial Court order staying the suspension of a government employee pending inquiry into alleged misconduct. The High Court found the suspension lawful under service regulations as the inquiry had commenced and charges were levelled. The order stayed the suspension and directed expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

The stay order of the Industrial Court dated 31.03.2011 was set aside; the industrial court was directed to dispose of the complaint within two months.

The Supdtd. Engineer Mah. State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 W.P.No.7685/11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶3

BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7685 OF 2011.

¶6

1. The Superintendent Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd., Jintur
Road, Parbhani, Tq. and Dist.
Parbhani.

¶7

2. The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd.,
Jintur Road, Parbhani,
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani.

¶8

3. The Assistant Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd.,
Sub-Division, Jintur,
Tq.Jintur, Dist.Parbhani.

¶9

...Petitioners.

¶10

Versus

¶11

Milind S/o Dashrath Jadhav,
Age 38 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Jintur, Tq. Jintur,
Dist.Parbhani.

¶12

... Respondent.

¶13

Mr.A.M.Gaikwad, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate for the Respondent.

¶14

2 W.P.No.7685/11

¶15

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶16

 Date : 22.11.2011.

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶18

1.Heard.

¶19

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties,the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶20

3.The present Respondent has filed a
complaint (ULP) No.75/2011, challenging the order
of suspension issued by the petitioner. The
Respondent also filed an application Exh.U-2 for
stay of the said suspension order. The said
application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the
present petition is filed.

¶21

4.Mr.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioners submits that the suspension is not by
way of punishment but is only pending inquiry.
Regulation 88 of the M.S.E.D.C.L. Service
Regulation empowers the employer to suspend an

¶23

3 W.P.No.7685/11

¶24

employee who is charged for an act of misconduct
or against whom a Criminal case is under
investigation, inquiry or trial. In the present
case, the Respondent is charged for misconduct
and four (4) charges are levelled against the
Respondent. Even charge-sheet has been issued and
inquiry is in progress. The Industrial court has
discussed the matter on merits, without evidence
on record. According to the learned counsel, the
said order can not be sustained.

¶25

5.Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the
Respondent supports the order and states that the
said charges are without any basis. The
Respondent has given the chart showing recoveries
made and further the work done by the Respondent.
Even the applications for earned leave are filed
on record. All these aspects have been rightly
considered by the Court. The Respondent could
not have been suspended for such charges.
Learned counsel further contends that there is no
criminal case registered against the Respondent

¶26

nor any such trial is pending. In such
circumstances, the Industrial Court has rightly

¶27

4 W.P.No.7685/11

¶28

stayed the order of suspension.

¶29

6.With the assistance of the learned
counsel, I have gone through the order. In the
present case, the suspension is not by way of
punishment but is pending inquiry. The inquiry
is initiated against the Respondent on account of
the alleged misconduct, wherein four charges are

¶30

culled out. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has also submitted that the charge-
sheet is also issued and Respondent is not
cooperating with the inquiry. Mr.Suryawanshi,
learned counsel disputes this fact. Be that as
it may, the inquiry has commenced and the charge-
sheet is also issued. Regulation 88 of the
M.S.E.D.C.L. Service Regulation empowers the
authority to suspend an employee who is charged
for an act of misconduct. There is nothing
observed by the Industrial Court about non-
adherence to the Rule while suspending. The
Industrial Court could not have dilated on merits
of the charges as the same is yet to be proved.

¶31

7.In view of the above, the impugned

¶32

5 W.P.No.7685/11

¶33

order can not be sustained and as such is quashed
and set aside.

¶34

8.Taking into account, the nature of the
dispute, the Industrial Court shall decide the
complaint(ULP)No.75/2011expeditiously,
preferably within a period of two (2) months from
today.

¶35

9.Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶36

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶38

asp/office/wp768511

The Supdtd. Engineer Mah. State Electricity Dist. Co. and Ors. v. Milind Dashrath Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Supdtd. Engineer Mah. State Electricity Dist. Co. and Ors. v. Milind Dashrath Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Rajaram Kadam Lrs Dagadabai Kisan Kadam and Ors. Vs Ranjanabai Suryabhan Mahadik and Ors.

Vijaykumr Bhuprao Shete and Anr. Vs Manohar Keshavrao Patil and Ors.

Hira Gurdal Chavan and Ors. Vs Sharad Kesharlal Kasat

Namdeo Gyanoba Kakade and Ors. Vs Mokshada Namdeo Kakade

Shirish Haribhau Waghmode Vs Robert Vasant Gaikwad and Ors.

Shirish Haribhau Waghmode Vs Robert Vasant Gaikwad and Ors.