Allowed

Ramkishan Khemaji Deshmukhe v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Another

Bombay HC13 Jan 2020WP/3548/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a stay on departmental inquiry pending criminal prosecution. The court directed the Special Judge to conclude the criminal case within one year. Departmental inquiry on overlapping charges must wait; on other charges, it may proceed.

What did the court decide?

Stayed departmental inquiry on criminal charges; directed Special Judge to decide case within one year; allowed inquiry to proceed on non-criminal charges thereafter.

Ramkishan Khemaji Deshmukhe Vs Maharashtra State… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

29-WP-3548-15.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3548 OF 2015

¶4

RAMKISHAN KHEMAJI DESHMUKHE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (MSEDCL) AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S. V. Kshirsagar h/f Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande Advocate for Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. U. S. Malte

¶8

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ. DATE : 13^th JANUARY, 2020

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard learned counsel Mr. S.V. Kshirsagar holding for Mr. A. S. Deshpande, counsel for petitioner and learned counsel Mr. U. S. Malte appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶11

At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Kshirsagar submits that subject matter involved in petition is no longer res integra and is covered by Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 20-11-2019 in Writ Petition No.6660 of 2019. Learned counsel for petitioner purports to contend that as a matter of fact petitioner in the present case is better placed than the petitioner in said writ petition referred to.

¶12

Charges levelled against petitioner in departmental proceeding under S.R. 88 dated 21-06-2014 read, thus:

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

29-WP-3548-15.odt

¶15

“ 1- daiuh’kh vizkekf.kdi.kk dj.ks(e- jk- fo- forj.k d a iuh e;kkZfnr deZpkjh lsokfofue; 2005 e/khy vuqlwph ^^[k** e/khy vuq- dz- 14)

¶16

2- daiuh’kh nzksg Bj.kkjh d`R;s dj.ks(e- jk- fo- forj.k d a iuh e;kkZfnr deZpkjh lsokfofue; 2005 e/khy vuqlwph ^^[k** e/khy vuq- dz- 15)

¶17

3- fo|qr xzkgdkdMqu ykpsph ekx.kh d:u ykp Lohdkj.ks(e- jk- fo- forj.k d a iuh e;kkZfnr deZpkjh lsokfofue; 2005 e/khy vuqlwph ^^[k** e/khy vuq- dz- 21 o lsokfofu;e vuq- dz- 86 (4) P;k [kkyhy fVIi.khuqlkj)

¶18

4- daiuhph tuekulkrhy izfrek eyhu dj.ks(e- jk- fo- forj.k d a iuh e;kkZfnr deZpkjh lsokfofue; 2005 vuq- dz- 86 (4) P;k [kkyhy fVisuqlkj) ”

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, perusal of order in Writ Petition No.6660 of 2019, particularly paragraph No.6 thereunder, would show that charges in present matter are also similar as were considered under said order dated 20-11-2019.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 contends that proceeding in respect of charges in departmental inquiry not concerned in criminal proceeding would not be liable to be stalled for criminal prosecution being pending. Such charges can be proceeded with. Further, learned counsel for respondents submits that in criminal case pending before Special Judge, charge-sheet has already been filed.

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

29-WP-3548-15.odt

¶23

Perusal of order dated 20-11-2019 in Writ Petition No.6660 of 2019 shows that the court had considered Supreme Court’s decision in case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Neelam Nag [2016 (8) SCALE, 826] as well as decision of the Division Bench of this court in Writ petition No.4758 of 2014 and other companion matters decided on 23-09-2015. It has been additionally observed that this court in Writ Petition No.9553 of 2016 had considered that parallelly criminal prosecution and departmental proceeding may not proceed and criminal case could be directed to be decided within a year and if the criminal case is not decided within a year then departmental inquiry may proceed further. It is further considered that so far as charges which are not concerned with the criminal case then there would be no bar to proceed with the departmental proceedings.

¶24

Having regard to aforesaid, it appears that present matter calls for to adopt the course pursuant to order in Writ Petition No. 6660 of 20169. Thus, the following order :

¶25

O R D E R

¶26