Disposed

Laxmikant Tryambak Chavan v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Another

Bombay HC10 Apr 2018WP/3593/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of the writ petition by issuing directions to the concerned courts to expedite criminal proceedings against the petitioner within one year, with conditional resumption of disciplinary proceedings if the trial exceeds the stipulated timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Directions to conclude criminal proceedings within one year and resume disciplinary proceedings if trial exceeds that period.

Laxmikant Tryambak Chavan Vs Maharashtra State… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp3593-18.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3593 OF 2018

¶5

Laxmikant s/o Tryambak Chavan Age 51 years, occ. service r/o 41, Shiv-Parvati Colony, Abhishek, Near Datta Mandir Deopur, Dhule 424 005.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company LTD (MSEDCL) Having its office at "Prakashgad", 6th Floor, Station Road, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051.

¶9

Through its Managing director

¶10

2 The Regional Executive Director II And Competent Authority MSEDCL, having its office at Building No. 2, Flat No. 1 and 2, Officers' Colony Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 016. Respondents

¶11

Mr. S.S. Thombre, advocate for petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Harshita Manglani, advocate holding for Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶13

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶14

K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 10^th APRIL, 2018

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per R.M. Borde, J.) :

¶16

1 The facts givig rise to the instant petition are identical in all respects to the facts of the decided group of matters i.e. W.P. No. 4045 of 2015 (Subhash s/o Babulal Jaiswal Vs. Managing Director, MSEDCL & others), and companion matters, decided on 06.10.2016 and as such, instant petition can be disposed of by

¶17

{2}

¶18

wp3593-18.odt

¶19

issuing similar directions, as have been issued in the aforesaid group of petitions.

¶20

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶21

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others Vs. Neelam Nag reported in 2016 (8) SCALE 826 and for the reasons recorded in the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this court in W.P. No. 4758 of 2014 and companion matters, decided on 23.09.2015, this petition stands disposed of with following directions :

¶22

(I) We direct the Court, dealing with the Criminal charges against the petitioner, to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of one year from the date of this order.

¶23

(II) The interim order, granting stay to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date of this order.

¶24

(III) In case the charge sheet is not filed or belatedly filed, the interim order, granting stay to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings in such case, shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date of this order and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in those proceedings shall be resumed and concluded by the Enquiry Officer thereafter.

¶25

{3} wp3593-18.odt

¶26

(IV) We hope and trust that the trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appeared and examined accordingly.

¶27

(V) The petitioner, who is accused in criminal case, shall cooperate with the trial Court for early disposal of criminal proceedings.

¶28

(VI) In case, the trial is not completed within a period of one year from today, despite the steps which the trial Court has been directed to take, the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioners shall be resumed and concluded by the Enquiry Officer.

¶29

(VII) We make it clear that the interim orders staying ongoing disciplinary proceedings shall, in that case, stand vacated upon expiry of a period of one year from the date of this order.

¶30

(VIII) Registry may communicate this order to the concerned Court where the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is pending.

¶31

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶32

K. K. SONAWANE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

dyb

Laxmikant Tryambak Chavan v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmikant Tryambak Chavan v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Ramesh Yendait Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sharjabai Tukaram Gaikwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shubhangi Dinesh Rathi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anilkumar Keshavrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ayyub Gambhir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jasminekaur Mahinder Singh Kohli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others