Bombay High Court
Mrs. Surekha Suresh Halve vs Executive Director (H.R.) ... on 29 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 judg.wp 3072.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No.3072/2015
Mrs. Surekha Suresh Halve,
Aged about 60 years, Occ.-Nil,
R/o.-335, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur-22. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1] Executive Director (H.R.)
M.S.E.D.C.L., Prakash Gad, 4th Floor,
Anant Kanekar Road, Station Road,
Bandra (East) Mumbai- 4000051.
2] Chief Engineer,
Nagpur Urban Zone,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd;
Prakash Bhavan, Gaddi Godam, Sadar, Nagpur.
3] Superintending Engineer/Competent Authority,
Nagpur Urban Circle,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,
Prakash Bhavan, Gaddi Godam, Sadar, Nagpur.
4] Pravin Wagh, Asst. General Manager (H.R.)/
Enquiry Officer, C/o.-Chief Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L.,
Vidyut Bhavan, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg,
Aurangabad-431001. R
ESPONDENTS
Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents.
And
WRIT PETITION No.4528/2015
Mrs. Surekha Suresh Halve,
Aged about 60 years, Occ.-Nil,
R/o.-335, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur-22. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:23:29 :::
2 judg.wp 3072.15.odt
1] Executive Director (H.R.)
M.S.E.D.C.L., Prakash Gad, 4th Floor,
Anant Kanekar Road, Station Road,
Bandra (East) Mumbai- 4000051.
2] Chief Engineer,
Nagpur Urban Zone,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd;
Prakash Bhavan, Gaddi Godam, Sadar, Nagpur.
3] Superintending Engineer/Competent Authority,
Nagpur Urban Circle,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,
Prakash Bhavan, Gaddi Godam, Sadar, Nagpur.
4] Pravin Wagh, Asst. General Manager (H.R.)/
Enquiry Officer, C/o.-Chief Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L.,
Vidyut Bhavan, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg,
Aurangabad-431001. R
ESPONDENTS
Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents.
Coram : Smt. Vasanti A Naik &
Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
Dated : 29
September, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Since the petitioner has challenged two similar orders of the
respondent-M.S.E.D.C.L. in these Writ Petitions and since the issue involved in
the petitions is identical, they are heard together and are decided by this
common judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petitions are heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for
the contesting parties.
3 judg.wp 3072.15.odt
The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is the same. The petitioner
was an employee of the respondent-M.S.E.D.C.L. and at the relevant time was
working as an Assistant Manager. During her tenure as an Assistant Manager
the petitioner was charged of preparing an incorrect list of the employees that
were liable to be absorbed in the M.S.E.D.C.L. as the job of the M.S.E.B. in the
Gandhibagh, Mahal and Civil Lines offices was transferred to a private
company, SPANCO. According to the M.S.E.D.C.L., the petitioner, as an
Assistant Manager was required to prepare a list of surplus employees, after
ensuring that women employees, employees that are due for retirement and
ailing employees should not be included in the list of employees that are liable
to be absorbed in the M.S.E.D.C.L. It is the case of the M.S.E.D.C.L., that the
petitioner prepared an incorrect list, thereby including 56 employees that fell
in the aforesaid three categories, that were required to be excluded. After
conducting a departmental enquiry, a minor penalty was imposed on the
petitioner and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.51,000/- due to
her negligence and breach of the orders of the M.S.E.D.C.L. The petitioner
challenged the said order in Departmental Appeals but the appeals were
dismissed. The order of the M.S.E.D.C.L. imposing the penalty of Rs.51,000/-
on the petitioner is challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3072 of
2015.
While working as an Assistant Manager, the petitioner had received an
application of an employee who desired to go on a long study leave and the
petitioner had sent the same to the dealing Clerk. According to the petitioner
the said application was not received from the dealing Clerk and hence the
4 judg.wp 3072.15.odt
petitioner could not send it to the Head Office. It is the case of the
M.S.E.D.C.L. that the petitioner was negligent in performing the duties as she
had not sent the application of the employee for permission to go on a long
study leave to the Head Office with due diligence. An enquiry was conducted
in this matter also and a minor penalty of Rs.51,000/- was imposed, on the
petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order in the Departmental Appeal
which were partly allowed and the penalty was reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The
said order is impugned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4528 of 2015.
Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submits
that the impugned orders suffer from a jurisdictional error as the
respondent-M.S.E.D.C.L. could not have imposed the penalty of payment of
Rs.51,000/- or Rs.15,000/- for the negligence on the part of the petitioner. It
is stated that the penalty of Rs.51,000/- is imposed on the petitioner for
preparing an incorrect list of surplus employees, under SR 91 (2)(a). It is
stated that under the said Rule a recovery could have been made only if the
pecuniary loss caused to the Company due to the negligence or breach of the
orders of the Company on the part of the employee is more than Rs.50,000/-.
It is stated that no pecuniary loss was caused to the M.S.E.D.C.L. by
preparation of an incorrect list of surplus employees by the petitioner even
assuming that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. It is
submitted that the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the
negligence in not urgently dispatching the application of the employee who
desired to go on a long leave to the Head Office, under SR 91(1)(d). It is
submitted that a penalty of Rs.15,000/- could have been imposed upon the
5 judg.wp 3072.15.odt
petitioner only if pecuniary loss was caused to the Company. It is stated that
no pecuniary loss was caused to the M.S.E.D.C.L., even assuming that the
charge of not dispatching the application of the employee who was desirous to
go on a long leave, to the Head Office diligently, is held to be proved. It is
stated that the M.S.E.D.C.L. cannot impose a penalty on an employee in terms
of money due to the negligence or breach of the orders.
Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent-M.S.E.D.C.L.
supported the orders of the Company. It is however fairly admitted that the
imposition of the penalty on the petitioner was under SR 91(2)(a) and
SR 91(1)(d). It is further admitted that under the said regulation the amount
could have been recovered only if the loss was caused to the Company.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of
SR 91(1)(d) and SR 91(2)(a) we find that the respondent-M.S.E.D.C.L. was
not justified in imposing the penalty of Rs.51,000/- and Rs.15,000/- on the
petitioner under SR 91(2)(a) and SR 91(1)(d) respectively. SR 91(2)(a) and
SR 91(1)(d) read thus :-
" SR 91(2)(a)
As in (d) above but for loss in excess of
Rs.50,000/-according to the gravity of
the offence and the loss incurred by the
Company.
6 judg.wp 3072.15.odt
SR 91(1)(d)
Recovery from gross salary/or an
encashment of leave at the time of
retirement to make up wholly or partly
the pecuniary loss caused to the
Company due to negligence or breach of
orders (amounts less than Rs.50,000/-)"
It is apparent from a reading of the said regulations that the said
regulations deal with the imposition of the minor punishment if pecuniary
loss is caused to the Company due to the negligence or breach of the orders of
the Company to the extent of more than Rs.50,000/- and less than
Rs.50,000/- respectively. By no stretch of imagination it would be said that
the preparation of an incorrect list of surplus employees by the petitioner and
the absence of diligence on the part of the petitioner in dispatching the
application of the employee for long study leave has caused pecuniary loss to
the Company. The petitioner could have been penalised in terms of money,
only if there was a provision in the service regulation, to so penalise. Nothing
has been pointed out on behalf the respondent-Company to show that for the
minor lapses on the part of an employee, the employee could be penalised in
terms of money, though pecuniary loss is not caused to the Company, in view
of the minor lapses. It is rightly stated on behalf of the petitioner that the
Company did not have the authority to penalize the petitioner in terms of
money to the extent of Rs.51,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, even if the minor lapses
on the part of the petitioner were proved. The impugned orders are bad in
law and are liable to be set aside. Since the respondent-Company has
recovered the amount that was liable to be paid by the petitioner in terms of
7 judg.wp 3072.15.odt
the impugned orders from her retiral benefits, we direct the respondent-
M.S.E.D.C.L. to refund the amount to the petitioner within four weeks.
For the reasons aforesaid the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned
orders are quashed and set aside. The respondent-M.S.E.D.C.L. is directed to
refund the amount to the petitioner within four weeks.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUD
GE
Deshmukh
8 judg.wp 3072.15.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on :
(Deshmukh) 03/10/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
