Dismissed

Maheshkumar S/O Puranlal Jain v. Maharashtra State Electric Distribution Company Ltd., through Its Chief Engineer

Bombay HC7 Aug 2012WP/2709/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this stale writ petition, the High Court considered a claim to treat an employee's suspension period as spent on duty following acquittal in criminal proceedings. The court dismissed the petition, noting the delay was over five years and there was no explanation for not raising the issue promptly after the departmental punishment took finality.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to treat suspension as spent on duty was dismissed due to injuryal delay and lack of explanation.

Maheshkumar S/O Puranlal Jain Vs Maharashtra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/3

¶2

0708wp2709.12.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2709 OF 2012

¶5

(Maneshkumar Puranlal Jain Vs. M.S. Distribution Co. Ltd.)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Mr. M. B. Agasti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & M. T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 07 AUGUST, 2012

¶13

Heard.

¶14

By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

¶15

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following three

¶16

reliefs.:

¶17

(1)“Quash and set aside the order passed by the Chief Legal Advisor of respondent dated 7/12/2010 Annexure-6 being illegal, improper and without application of mind.

¶18

(2)Direct the Respondent to release the monetary benefits which the petitioner was entitled for not suspended for the period of 18/5/2004 to 6/9/2006, possession, cultivation of the land.

¶19

(3)Quash and set aside the order by respondent dated 30/6/2007, Annexure-5 under which the petitioner

¶20

2/3

¶21

0708wp2709.12.odt

¶22

was subjected to face punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect”.

¶23

The reliefs as claimed, are based on the factual position in as much as the petitioner was proceeded on charges of bribery and corruption and placed under suspension from 27/5/2004 to 06/9/2006 on which date his suspension came to be revoked. Later on he was tried for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide Special (ACB) Case No.10/2005. That case resulted in an acquittal of the petitioner. However, the grievance is that the period of suspension has not been treated as spent on duty.

¶24

However, the petitioner does not dispute that subsequently, he was proceeded departmentally and on 30/6/2007, an order was passed imposing punishment of stoppage of the annual increments to be paid to the petitioner for three years with cumulative effect.

¶25

That order has been allowed to gain finality and

¶26

not challenged either by way of Writ Petition or by Departmental Appeal.

¶27

3/3

¶28

0708wp2709.12.odt

¶29

In these circumstances, after a period of more than six years, we cannot now give him a benefit of the period of suspension and particularly as requested to be treated as spent on duty. This is clearly a stale claim and it is being raised after a period of more than five years. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the petitioner did not seek this relief after the disposal of the Special Case and in any event after the punishment was imposed on 30/6/2007.

¶30

In these circumstances, the claim being stale and there being no explanation for the inordinate delay caused in filing this Writ Petition that we dismiss this Writ Petition. No costs.

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

wwl

Maheshkumar S/O Puranlal Jain v. Maharashtra State Electric Distribution Company Ltd., through Its Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshkumar S/O Puranlal Jain v. Maharashtra State Electric Distribution Company Ltd., through Its Chief Engineer

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

Ku. Monali Ramdas Kale Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary of School, Education and Sports Department and 4 Others

Akhil Gondia Zilla Prathmik Shikshak Sangh, through Its Secretary Vs Zilla Parishad, through Its Chief Executive Officer, Gondia and Another

Renuka Devanand Yelne Vs Bal Vikas Prakalp Adhikari Bhandara and Anr.

Rameshwar Jagoji Pawar Vs the C.E.O. Zp, Washim and Anr.

Sau. Madhuri W/O Mukund Landge Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Ku. Shobha Shankarrao Giradkar Now Sau. Shobha Subhash Akare Vs Zp, Gondia Thr. Its C.E.O. and 2 Ors.