Bombay High Court
Pradeep Dnyandev Mohare vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-OS:3482-DB
ppn 1 29.wpl-839.24(j).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.839 OF 2024
Pradeep Dnyandev Mohare )
Aged 46 years. Occ. Section Officer, )
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, )
13th Floor, World Trade Center, )
Center 1, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, )
Mumbai -400 005. ) .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission)
Through its Secretary, )
having its office at World Trade Center, )
th
Center 1, 13 floor, Cuffe Parade, Colaba )
Mumbai 400 005. )
2. Deputy Director (Admin & Finance) )
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission )
having its office at World Trade Center, )
Center 1, 13th floor, Cuffe Parade, Colaba )
Mumbai 400 005. ) .. Respondents
---
Mr.R.G. Panchal with Mr.K. Jadhav for the petitioner.
Mr.Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishwajeet Sawant, Senior
Advocate i/by Mr.Yogesh Patil for respondents nos.1 & 2-MERC.
----
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Date on which arguments were heard : 27 th FEBRUARY 2024
Date on which the judgment is pronounced : 4TH MARCH 2024
Judgment (Per Jitendra Jain, J.) :-
. Rule. Mr.Yogesh Patil, learned Advocate waives service of
notice for respondent nos.1-Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
ppn 2 29.wpl-839.24(j).doc
Commission & 2-Deputy Director (Admin & Finance). By consent of the
parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 20 th
December 2023 and the charge-sheet dated 28 th December 2023 issued
by the respondents.
3. Brief facts are as under :-
(i) On 4th August 2010, respondent no.1 appointed petitioner to the
post of 'Section Officer.' On 12th October 2023, the petitioner filed a
complaint with the Maharashtra State, Scheduled Castes and Tribes
Commission complaining of withholding his promotion by respondent
no.1.
(ii) On 20th December 2023, the petitioner was informed by
respondent no.2 that he has been suspended and further the said
suspension order was followed subsequently by the charge-sheet dated
28th December 2023 issued under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Disciplinary and Appeals) Rules 1979 ('MCS Rules') and the
Departmental Inquiry Rules.
(iii) The petitioner made representation against the aforesaid
suspension but the same was not dropped. It is on this backdrop that the
petitioner is before us challenging the suspension order and the charge-
ppn 3 29.wpl-839.24(j).doc
sheet.
3. The only contention of the petitioner is that as per
Regulation 75 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 2007
the appropriate authority for issuing the suspension order and the
charge-sheet was "Secretary" whereas the impugned suspension order
and the charge-sheet is issued by respondent no.2 Deputy Director
(Administration and Finance). Since the suspension order and charge-
sheet are not issued by the appropriate authority, the proceedings
initiated are bad-in-law. The petitioner in support of his submission
relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India
& Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath 1.
4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
took us through the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the decision
for issuing suspension order and the charge-sheet was approved by
respondent no.1-Commission and only its communication to the
petitioner was made by respondent no.2. The respondents, therefore,
submitted that it is incorrect to say that the appropriate authority has
not sanctioned or approved the suspension order and the charge-sheet.
The respondents in the alternative submitted that the suspension order
1 (2014) 1 SCC 351
ppn 4 29.wpl-839.24(j).doc
and the charge-sheet not being issued by the appropriate authority can
be taken at the time of hearing of the proceedings. Therefore, the
respondents prayed for dismissal of the proceedings. The respondents
in support of their submissions relied upon the decision in case of
Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 Vs. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy2.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and with their assistance
have perused the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavit-in-
reply.
6. The service condition of the petitioner is governed by the
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 2007. The relevant
regulation with respect to conduct and the discipline reads thus :-
"74. The provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979
and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, as
amended from time to time and any other applicable laws, rules and
regulations, as applicable to employees of the State Government, shall apply to
the employees in the regular service of the Commission.
75. The appointing authority, disciplinary authority, appellate authority and
reviewing authority in respect of the officers and staff of the Commission shall
be as specified in Appendix- 'C'."
2 (1995) 1 SCC 332
ppn 5 29.wpl-839.24(j).doc
7. The Competent Authority for the purpose of disciplinary
action and appeals as per Regulation 75 is specified in Appendix 'C'
which reads as under :-
Appendix 'C'
Competent Authority for the purpose of disciplinary action and appeals
(See Regulation 75)
Description Designated Authority Class of employees
Appointing authority Commission Officers
Staff
Disciplinary Authority Chairperson Secretary
Secretary Other Officers & Staff.
Appellate Authority Commission Officers
Staff
Smt. Malini Shankar
Mumbai Secretary
Dated the 16th January 2007. MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
8. The petitioner was appointed vide letter dated 4 th August
2010 by respondent no.1-Commission. The Class of Employees in which
the petitioner falls for the purpose of Appendix 'C' is "Other Officers &
Staff" and therefore, the Designated Authority for the purpose of
disciplinary action is the "Secretary" of the Commission.
9. We have perused the decision for suspension of the
petitioner taken by respondent no.1-Commission on 15 th December
2023. The said document is signed by all the members of respondent
no.1-Commission including Under Secretary and it bears a note stating
ppn 6 29.wpl-839.24(j).doc
that the proposal is approved. The suspension order is thereafter
communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20 th December 2023 by
respondent no.2-Deputy Director and in the said order, it is mentioned
that the same is issued "by order". Therefore, on conjoint reading of the
Minutes of Meeting of respondent no.1-Commission dated 15 th
December 2023 and the letter communicating suspension dated 20 th
December 2023, the suspension order was approved by respondent no.1-
Commission and the said respondent no.2 was authorised to
communicate the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not
correct in submitting that the suspension order is not issued by the
appropriate authority.
10. Similarly, the Minutes of Meeting of respondent no.1 dated
15th December 2023 approving the initiation of the disciplinary
proceedings under Rule 8 of the MCS Rules is also signed by all the
members of the respondent no.1-Commission including Under Secretary
and as per the order and approval of the respondent no.1-Commission,
the charges were communicated by respondent no.2 to the petitioner.
Therefore, the said two documents clearly show that the charge-sheet
has been approved by the Competent Authority but only its
communication to the petitioner was done by respondent no.2 under the
orders of respondent no.1-Commission. Therefore even on this count,
ppn 7 29.wpl-839.24(j).doc
the charge-sheet cannot be faulted with.
11. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of Supreme
Court in case of B.V. Gopinath (supra). In our view, the said decision is
distinguishable inasmuch as in Gopinath case, the charge memo was not
approved by the appropriate authority and it is on this fact that the
proceedings were held to be bad-in-law. In the instant case of the
petitioner, the appointing authority respondent no.1 has approved the
suspension order and the proceedings under Rule 8 of the MCS Rules
as observed by us above and therefore this decision does not assist the
petitioner.
12. Rule 8(4) of the MCS Rules provides that the disciplinary
authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered, a copy of articles of
charge to the employees. The phrase "deliver or cause to be delivered"
would mean that the Competent Authority has power to delegate the
communication of the charge to any authority after having taken a
decision of issuing suspension order/charge-sheet.
13. In the instant case as observed by us above, the decision
has been taken by respondent no.1 and on its behalf, the communication
of the suspension order and the charge-sheet was made by respondent
no.2 to the petitioner. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in issuance
of the suspension order and the charge-sheet.
ppn 8 29.wpl-839.24(j).doc
14. In view of the above, we do not see any reason for
interference in the present proceedings and therefore, the writ petition
is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
JITENDRA JAIN, J. A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
