Bombay High Court
Ravi Tarachand Dhote vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 24 October, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp769814.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7698 OF 2014
Ravi s/o Tarachand Dhote,
age: 41 years, Occ: Service as
Junior Engineer in MSECDL -
presently posted to work at
Nanded Circle Office,
Nivgha (Bazar) Section,
Tahsil Hadgaon, District Nanded. Petitioner
Versus
01 Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd.
(MSEDCL), having its Office at
'Prakashgad', 6th Floor,
Station Road, Bandra (East),
Mumbai 400 051, through
its Managing Director.
02 The Regional Executive Director-II,
MSEDCL Office, Building No.2,
Flat No.1 & 2, Officer's Colony,
Ganesh Khind Road,
Pune-411 016. Respondents
Mr.Ajay S. Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner
Ms.Harshita Manglani, advocate holding for Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate
for Respondents No.1 & 2.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
K.K.SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 24th October, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 The facts giving 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
{2}
wp769814.odt
06.10.2016 and as such, instant petition can be disposed of by
issuing similar directions, as have been issued in the aforesaid
group of petitions.
2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
3 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:
(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.
(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.
(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
{3}
wp769814.odt
resumed and concluded by the Enquiry Officer thereafter.
(IV) We hope and trust that the trial Court will take
effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appeared
and examined accordingly.
(V) The petitioner, who is accused in criminal case, shall
cooperate with the trial Court for early disposal of criminal
proceedings.
(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.
(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.
(VIII) Registry may communicate this order to the concerned
Court where the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is
pending.
4 Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is
made absolute in above terms.
K.K.SONAWANE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp769814
