Dismissed¶30

Shri Deoras Tukaram Chavan v. Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026WP/291/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unexplained delay and laches defeat late challenge to MSEDCL disciplinary penalties (order 06.11.2006; appellate enhancement 06.12.2007 withholding two years' increment, Clause 92 MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations 2005); criminal acquittal on 21.04.2014 and interim representations do not revive the challenge; suspension-period regularization claim left unexamined; writ petition dismissed, rule discharged without costs — WP 291 of 2019, Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, 12.10.2023.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches; the challenge as raised does not warrant consideration on merits. ¶26

Shri Deoras Tukaram Chavan Vs Chairman and Managing Director… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty orders of 06.11.2006 and 06.12.2007 is barred by unexplained delay and laches, notwithstanding the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal trial on 21.04.2014 and the representations made in the meanwhile. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

On this count, the claim of the petitioner is not examined on merits; the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches; the challenge as raised does not warrant consideration on merits.

¶26

Key takeaways

There is no explanation whatsoever furnished by the petitioner for not raising a challenge to the penalty orders for a period of more than almost ten years.ratio¶29
The petitioner's acquittal in the criminal proceedings on 21.04.2014 does not assist him in getting over the undue delay in challenging the orders of penalty.ratio¶29
The order passed in the disciplinary proceedings is after holding a full-fledged enquiry and the conclusion thereof was not on account of the petitioner's criminal prosecution.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Division Bench (A.S. Chandurkar and Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.; judgment per Chandurkar J.), 12.10.2023 — Writ Petition No. 291 of 2019. A retired Junior Engineer of MSEDCL challenged (i) the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 06.11.2006, passed at the conclusion of a departmental enquiry, treating his entire suspension period 07.10.2005 to 29.07.2011 (following FIR No.3241 of 2005 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) as a period spent under suspension, and (ii) the Appellate Authority's (Chief Engineer's) order dated 06.12.2007, served by notice dated 11.07.2007, which under Clause 92 of the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 enhanced the punishment by withholding his annual increment for two years with cumulative effect; he further sought regularization of the suspension period as duty for all purposes. The writ petition was filed on 19.11.2018 — almost ten years after the penalty orders — although the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal trial (Special Case No.10 of 2007) on 21.04.2014, acquittal having attained finality. Holding: the petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches; no explanation was furnished for the near-decade gap; the acquittal does not assist in getting over the undue delay; the departmental order resulted from a full-fledged enquiry based on evidence assessed on preponderance of probabilities, independent of the criminal prosecution; interim representations do not arrest the running of time. The claim was therefore not examined on merits. Writ petition dismissed on ground of unexplained delay and laches; rule discharged, no order as to costs.

¶1

1/4

¶2

2023:BHC-NAG:15301-DB

¶3

WP-291-2019(J).odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 291 of 2019

¶6

Deoras Tukaram Chavan, Aged about 65 years, Occupation-Retired Junior Engineer, Pannase Utkarsh Complex, Flat No.108, ‘B Wing’ Ring Road, Kotwal Nagar, Nagpur-440 015 ..... PETITIONER

¶7

...V E R S U S...

¶8

The Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), 6^th Floor, ‘Prakashgad’ Aliyavar Jung Marg, Station Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-51.

¶9

The Regional Director, MSEDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Katol Road, Nagpur-440 013.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Nagpur Zone, MSEDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Katol Road, Nagpur-440 013.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Urban Circle, MSEDCL, Prakash Bhavan, Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440 001.

¶12

....... RESPONDENTS

¶13

Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri D.M.Kale, Advocate for respondents.

¶14

CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 12^th OCTOBER 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶16

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order of

¶17

punishment dated 06.11.2006 imposed by the Disciplinary Authority at the

¶18

WP-291-2019(J).odt

¶19

2/4

¶20

conclusion of the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner as modified by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.12.2007. The petitioner also seeks a direction to regularize the period of suspension from 07.10.2005 to 29.07.2011 as period spent on duty for all purposes.

¶21

The petitioner while serving as Junior Engineer with the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited - MSEDCL was placed on suspension on 10.10.2005 pursuant to registration of a First Information Report No.3241 of 2005 under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of his arrest during course of investigation, he was placed under suspension. A departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner and pursuant to the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority on 06.11.2006 imposed the penalty of treating the petitioner to be under suspension for the entire period of suspension from 07.10.2005 to 29.07.2011. On 11.07.2007 a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Chief Engineer being the Appellate Authority proposing to enhance the penalty imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. It proposed to withhold annual increment of the petitioner for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 23.07.2007 and by the order dated 06.12.2007 in exercise of powers under Clause 92 of the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 the punishment was enhanced by withholding his increment for a period of two

¶22

WP-291-2019(J).odt

¶23

3/4

¶24

years with cumulative effect.

¶25

In the criminal trial, the petitioner came to be acquitted on 21.04.2014 vide judgment delivered in Special Case No.10 of 2007. That decision has attained finality. In these facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 19.11.2018 and has raised challenge to the orders dated 06.11.2006 and 06.12.2007 imposing penalty consequent upon the disciplinary proceedings held against him.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record including the decisions in Om Prakash Gupta vs. State of U. P. [AIR 1955 SC 600] , P. P. Kapur vs. Union of India and another [AIR 1964 SC 787], Brahma Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India [AIR 1984 SC 380] , V. P. Gindroniya vs. State of M. P. and another [AIR 1970 SC 1494] , Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another [(2015) 7 SCC 29] Vijay Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India and another [(2015) 17 SCC 625] , and Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 100 of 2016) Raj Narain vs. Union of India that were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches and hence the challenge as raised does not warrant consideration on merits. The petitioner was under suspension for the period from 07.10.2005 to 29.07.2011. The petitioner suffered the punishment imposed upon him initially on

¶27

WP-291-2019(J).odt

¶28

4/4

¶29

06.11.2006 by treating the petitioner to be under suspension for the entire period of suspension and thereafter the punishment as enhanced by the Appellate Authority on 06.12.2007. There is no explanation whatsoever furnished by the petitioner for not raising a challenge to these orders for a period of more than almost ten years. Even if it is considered that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings on 21.04.2014, we do not find that the said aspect would assist the petitioner in getting over the undue delay in challenging the orders of penalty. The order passed in the disciplinary proceedings is after holding a full-fledged enquiry and the conclusion thereof was not on account of the petitioner’s criminal prosecution. Evidence was led on the charges framed and on the basis of preponderance of probabilities the punishment was inflicted. The petitioner appears to have made certain representations in the meanwhile. We do not find that making of such representations would have the effect of preventing the running of time for raising challenge to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶30

On this count, the claim of the petitioner is not examined on merits. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay

¶31

and laches. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.

¶32

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶33

Andurkar..

Shri Deoras Tukaram Chavan v. Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Deoras Tukaram Chavan v. Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kunal S/O Ramdayal Suryawanshi and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

M/S Visual Instinct India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur, Thr. Director, Sandeep Dinkar Jat and Another vs Indian Overseas Bank, Nagpur Main Branch, Thr. Authorized Officer and Ors.

Vinodkumar S/O. Gautam Tajane vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Ankit Babanrao Naitam vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Vasudha Wd/O Praful Raipure and Others vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Arun S/O Dewman Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.