Bombay High Court
Ganesh Tukaram Pachpohe vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 25 September, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
(Judgment) (1) W.P. No. 10886 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 10886 of 2017
District : Jalgaon
Ganesh s/o. Tukaram Pachpohe,
Age : 49 years,
Occupation : Govt. Service,
R/o. A2, 1203, Vertex Solitaire,
Near Mohan Heights,
Kalyan (West), Dist. Thane. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. 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.
2. The Regional Executive Director-II,
and Competent Authority,
MSEDCL, having its office at
Building No.2, Flat No.1 and 2,
Officers' Colony,
Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune - 411 016.
3. The Chief Engineer and
Competent Authority,
Jalgaon Circle, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondents
no.01 to 03.
...........
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:18:39 :::
(Judgment) (2) W.P. No. 10886 of 2017
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.):
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard finally.
02. The petitioner is employee of respondent -
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company
Ltd. [MSEDCL]. While functioning as Additional
Executive Engineer, he is alleged to have accepted
illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/-and was
apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on
05.07.2016 while accepting the amount. A criminal
case has been instituted against him under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
the criminal case is pending at the stage of trial.
03. The petitioner is also alleged to have
indulged into certain other irregularities in respect
of which charges have been framed. On perusal of the
charge-sheet tendered on 14.12.2016, it does appear
(Judgment) (3) W.P. No. 10886 of 2017
that the same relates to two instances. The instance
no.01 in the charge-sheet relates to acceptance of
illegal gratification and pendency of criminal case
for offence punishable under the provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act. Whereas second
instance relates to certain irregularities and
alleged misconduct while functioning at Dharangaon
Division.
04. The petitioner contends that the allegations
levelled against him and the evidence relied upon by
the prosecution in the criminal case lodged against
him in respect of commission of offence under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act would be
similar as in the case of departmental proceedings in
respect of instance no.01 quoted in the charge-sheet.
The departmental proceedings in respect of incidental
charges framed under the case of instance no.01 shall
not proceed against him.
05. The petitioner relies upon judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs.
Neelam Nag [2016(8) SCALE 826] as well as judgment
(Judgment) (4) W.P. No. 10886 of 2017
delivered by Division Bench of this court in Writ
Petition No. 04758 of 2014 and other companion
matters decided on 23rd September, 2015. In the
matter referred to above, direction was issued to the
court dealing with the criminal charges to conclude
the proceedings expeditiously and within prescribed
time frame and the departmental proceedings initiated
against the petitioner in respect of charge for
commission of offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act was directed to be stayed.
06. In the instant matter, part of the charges
levelled against the petitioner based upon instance
no.01 are identical and the evidence that would be
relied upon by the prosecution in the criminal case
and by the employer in the enquiry proceedings would
be one and the same. In this view of the matter, the
departmental proceedings in respect of the charges
founded upon instance no.01 quoted in the charge-
sheet shall have to be stayed until conclusion of
criminal proceedings or for a limited period that
would be specified and prescribed as one year.
(Judgment) (5) W.P. No. 10886 of 2017
07. Hence, the following order :-
(a) The writ petition is partly allowed.
(b) We direct the court dealing with the criminal
charges against the petitioner to conclude criminal
trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of one year from the date of this
order.
(c) There shall be interim stay to the ongoing
disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, to
the extent of charges founded upon instance no.01
contained in the charge-sheet dated 14.12.2016, which
shall remain in force for a period of one year from
the date of this order.
(d) We hope and trust, that the trial court will take
effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are
served, appears and are examined and criminal trial
is concluded within the time frame prescribed above.
(e) The petitioner, who is accused in criminal case,
shall cooperate with the trial court for early
disposal of criminal proceedings.
(f) 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
(Judgment) (6) W.P. No. 10886 of 2017
petitioner shall be resumed and concluded by the
Enquiry Officer, in respect of the charges founded on
instance no.01 recorded in the charge-sheet dated
14.12.2016.
(g) So far as charges founded on instance no.02
quoted in the charge-sheet dated 14.12.2016, those
are distinct and have no connection with the criminal
proceedings. The employer may proceed with the
enquiry against the petitioner herein, to the extent
of charges founded on instance no.02 and may record
appropriate decision on conclusion of the
proceedings. The order of interim stay which has
been granted in respect of charges founded on
instance no.01 quoted in the charge-sheet dated
14.12.2016 shall not operate in respect of such
distinct charges.
(h) Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( R.M. Borde )
JUDGE JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP10886.17
