Remanded

Surendrasingh Govindsingh Rajput v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Another

Bombay HC22 Aug 2017WP/10385/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging an order dismissing inquiry proceedings. The court set aside the order for failing to comply with a prior direction to allow the petitioner to cross-examine and adduce evidence. The matter was remanded to the Enquiry Officer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Enquiry Officer to allow cross-examination and evidence on both sides with a timeline of one month from petitioner's appearance.

Surendrasingh Govindsingh Rajput Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(1)

¶2

10385.17wp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10385 OF 2017

¶5

Surendrasingh Govindsingh Rajput,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Service as
Assistant Engineer in MSEDCL-
Presently under suspension
At Circle Office, MSEDCL, Latur,
Dist. Latur, R/o. Vishal Nagar,
Opp. Sai Mandir, Latur...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1.Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd.
(MSEDCL) Having office at
'Prakashgad', 6th Floor,
Station Road, Bandra (East),
Mumbai 400 051
Through its Managing Director.

¶8

2. The Joint Managing Director, MSEDCL, Regional Office, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶10

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
 NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2017

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

By filing this writ petition under Article

¶14

226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner

¶15

10385.17wp (2)

¶16

has challenged the order dated 10th August, 2017
(Exhibit-H) passed by Joint Managing Director-
respondent No.2. Although, we find that the said
order is appealable but keeping in view the fact
that while passing the impugned order, respondent
No. 2 has not taken into consideration the
directions issued by this Court on 16th September,
2016 while deciding Civil Application No. 15643 of
2015 in Writ Petition No.4758 of 2014 filed by the
petitioner. In the said order, this Court had
directed the Equiry Officer to allow the applicant-
petitioner to cross examine the witnesses that may

¶17

have been examined by respondent-employer and
further to allow the applicant-petitioner to adduce
his evidence.

¶18

2.It has been stated by learned Counsel for

¶19

the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer had
concluded the inquiry on 19th July, 2014 and after
passing of the said order by this Court on 16th
September, 2016, it was incumbent upon the Enquiry
Officer to have complied with the directions

¶20

10385.17wp (3)

¶21

contained in the said order as aforesaid. Having
not done so, according to the petitioner, the
impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is liable
to be set aside.

¶22

3.Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and
2 submits that after passing this order, the
petitioner submitted representation dated 29th
September, 2-16 (Exhibit-G), in which, no specific
details of the witnesses were given and in the
circumstances, the impugned order has been passed.

¶23

4.Having considered the submissions made by
learned Counsel for the parties and having gone
through the said order dated 16th September, 2016,
as also inquiry report and impugned order, we are
of the view that while passing the impugned order,

¶24

respondent No.2 has failed to take into
consideration the directions contained in the order
passed by this Court on 16th September, 2016. In
the circumstances, in our considered view, the
impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶25

(4)

¶26

5.As a result, we set aside the impugned

¶27

order and remand the matter back to the Enquiry
Officer for giving opportunity to the applicant-
petitioner, as also to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to
lead their evidence, if any, with opportunity to
the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses as
may be produced. After closure of evidence by
respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner shall lead
his evidence and evidence of his witnesses, if any,
and keep all the witnesses present for being
examined on the date as may be fixed by the Enquiry
Officer.

¶28

6.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶29

petitioner made a statement that the petitioner
shall fully co-operate in early disposal of inquiry
proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary
adjournment.

¶30

7.The petitioner to appear before the

¶31

Enquiry Officer on 6th September, 2017 at 11-00

¶32

10385.17wp

¶33

a.m. The Enquiry Officer shall conclude inquiry in
terms of this order, as expeditiously, as possible,
but in any case, not later than one month from the
date of appearance of the petitioner before him.

¶34

8.With the aforesaid directions, writ

¶35

petition is disposed of.

¶36

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶37

Tupe

Surendrasingh Govindsingh Rajput v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendrasingh Govindsingh Rajput v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Another

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

Amol Prakash Ghode and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Rangnath Najan, Lrs Alka Ramesh Najan and Others Vs Kopargaon Nagar Parishad and Another

Hanumant Machindranath Jagtap and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganesh Vasant Firke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinod Ramchandraro Kanhegaonkar Vs Maharashtra Gramin Bank and Others

Jayabai Narayan Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others