Fulchand Yashawant Tapase vs Maharashtra State Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4775 Bom

                                                                    17.9428.17-wp.odt


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Basavraj
G. Patil
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by

                                          WRIT PETITION NO.9428/2017
Basavraj G. Patil
Date: 2021.03.18
11:49:22 +0530




                      Fulchand Yashwant Tapase                     ..... Petitioner

                              Vs.

                      MSEDC & Anr.                                 ..... Respondents


                      Mr. Arshad Shaikh i/b. Prashant Goyal for the Petitioner
                      Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little & Co. for the Respondents


                                                 CORAM:       K.K.TATED &
                                                              RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

                                                 DATED :      MARCH 16, 2021
                      P.C.

                      1       Heard.      At the request of    learned counsel for the

Petitioner Office is directed to place the matter on board on 23.03.2021 to enable him to prepare a chart as per order dated 02.03.2021.

2 The learned counsel for the Respondent has placed on record a copy of the apex Court judgment in the matter of Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Anr. Vs. Kailash Ramesh Tandel & Ors. 2019(6) SCC 155. He submits that the Apex Court has held that there is no question of stay to the Departmental Inquiry during pendency of the criminal matters. He relies on para 17 of the said order, which reads thus:

                      Basavraj G. Patil                                                 1/2
                                           17.9428.17-wp.odt

"17 It is well settled that a departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different. The purpose is different, the standard of proof is different and the approach is also different. The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges with which we are concerned in the present matter can never be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal proceeding were pending. The allegation made against Respondent 1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on the departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent. Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the pending issue before the Inquiry Committee. We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the approach of the nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable."

3 At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, Office is directed to place the matter on board on 23.03.2021.

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.)                   (K.K.TATED, J.)




Basavraj G. Patil                                             2/2