Dismissed

Ku. Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, Msedcl., Chandrapur

Bombay HC11 Nov 2024MCA/357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application challenging a termination order under MSEDCL regulations, the Court found no error in the earlier judgment regarding the 'Competent Authority', the applicable schedules of the Regulation, or the format of the termination order. The review application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for review is rejected.

Ku. Surekha Domaji Bele Vs Executive Engineer, Testing… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:12640

¶2

1 MCA-357-2024

¶3

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

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2024 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1200 OF 2023 (D)

¶6

(KU. SUREKHA DOMAJI BELE..VS.. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TESTING DIVISION, MSEDCL.)

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

and Registrar's orders

¶11

¶12

Petitioner Ku. Surekha Domaji Bele in-person (Thr.V.C.)

¶13

Shri Chaitanya A.Mohgaonkar h/f.Shri A.D.Mohgaonkar, Adv. for Respondent.

¶14

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 13/09/2024 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 11/11/2024

¶15

Heard both the parties through Video Conferencing.

¶16

The applicant has sought review of the judgment dated 05/04/2024 on two grounds that the order of termination is not in format given under the MSEDCL Employees’ Service Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “Regulations, 2005”) and the Competent Authority has not issued the order of termination.

¶17

This Court has given the reasons for rejection of the said argument in the judgment dated 05/04/2024. However, on seeking review and thereupon once again going through the Service Regulations, 2005, I do not find any error committed by this Court.

¶18

2 MCA-357-2024

¶19

The applicant is placing reliance on Fifth Schedule of the Service Regulation No.15 for the purpose of ‘Competent Authority’, whereas it is apparent on the face of the said Regulations, 2005 that the Fifth Schedule relates with the ‘Transfers’. Whereas, in the present matter, the subject matter of challenge is ‘dismissal’ and not ‘transfer’.

¶20

Furthermore, as far as the ‘Competent Authority’ is concerned, the appointing authorities are given in Third Schedule. Considering the Third Schedule and the Regulation No.88(k), I have no hesitation to hold that the finding recorded in the judgment dated 05/04/2024 that, there is no error as regards the ‘Competent Authority’, is just and proper.

¶21

Moreover, as the order of termination contains necessary facts attached to the punishment of dismissal, the argument relating to non-issuance of termination order in a given format, does not survive and accordingly, it is rejected.

¶22

Hence, as no error is noticed, the application for review is rejected .

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

RRaut..

Ku. Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, Msedcl., Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, Msedcl., Chandrapur

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

Santosh Madhukar Gupta vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Sambhaji Kadam vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujata Ramesh Ghare vs State of Maharashtra

Anusaya Wd/O Rajabhau Morale vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Pso Aroli Dist Nagpur and 2 Other

Adv. Mukund Madhukar Dudhkawale vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Vaibhav Baban Thite vs the State of Maharashtra