Jayashri Amardeep Shinde v. Mahatransco Director (Hr) Maha. State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2024WP/7096/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges dismissal from service after disciplinary enquiry, alleging the misconduct concerned eligibility criteria at initial 2006 recruitment raised malafidely after 18 years and promotions. Court directed respondents to file reply within two weeks, rejoinder within a week, listed petition for further hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jayashri Amardeep Shinde vs Mahatransco Director (Hr)… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

13-WP-7096-2024.docx

¶2

Neeta Sawant

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7096 OF 2024

¶5

Jayashri Amardeep Shinde } .. Petitioner : Versus :

¶6

Mahatransco Director (HR) Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and anr. } .. Respondents

¶7

Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar, a/w. Ms. Sonali R. Chavan, Ms. Sakshi S. Inamdar i/by. Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Neel Helekar, for the Respondent.

¶9

Coram : Sandeep V. Marne, & Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ. (Vacation Court) Dated : 15 May 2024.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The challenge in the present petition is to the Order dated 5 April 2024 passed by the Respondent-Company dismissing the Petitioner from service after conducting disciplinary enquiry against him. Dr. Warunjikar would submit that the misconduct alleged against the Petitioner was about the eligibility criteria prescribed at the time of his initial appointment on the post of ‘ Senior Clerk ’ made in the year 2006. Dr. Warunjikar would submit that after his initial recruitment on the post of ‘ Senior Clerk ’, Petitioner has been promoted to the post of ‘ Head Clerk’, ‘Deputy Manager’ and ‘Manager’. That after 18 long years, the issue of his

¶12

_____Page No. 1 of 2 ____ 15 May 2024

¶13

Neeta Sawant 13-WP-7096-2024.docx

¶14

eligibility criteria for initial recruitment is raked up in a malafide manner. Mr. Helekar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents seeks time to file reply.

¶15

Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the Petitioner leading to imposition of punishment of dismissal from service, it is appropriate that Respondents file reply to the petition in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, Respondents shall file reply to the petition within two weeks. Liberty to the Petitioner to file rejoinder within one week thereafter. List the petition on 11 June 2024.

¶16

[Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.]

¶17

[Sandeep V. Marne, J.]

¶18

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.05.15 15:02:18 +0530

¶19

_____Page No. 2 of 2 ____ 15 May 2024

Jayashri Amardeep Shinde v. Mahatransco Director (Hr) Maha. State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jayashri Amardeep Shinde v. Mahatransco Director (Hr) Maha. State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Coast Guard Employees Union a Trade Union Registered vs Union of India through the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence

Siraj Ahmad Faizi Mohammad Saleem vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary Dept. of Education and Sports and Ors.

Vijay Vishram Billewar vs the Assistant Commissioner Kokan Division and Ors.

Rahul Kumar vs the State Bank of India and Ors.

Dnyandeo Demaji Ghuge vs State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Uttam Dnyanoba Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra Education Department Thr.Its Principal Secretary and Ors.