Sitaram Mahadu Bondle v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd Through Its Managing Director And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 82 WRIT PETITION NO. 7177 OF 2016 SITARAM MAHADU BONDLE

VERSUS

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIREC ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Deshpande Ajay S. AGP for respondent no. 1 : Mr. A.P. Basarkar Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr.Malte Uday S. ...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND SUNIL K.KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 25, 2018 O R D E R :

1.

Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. At the same time, for the same charges departmental inquiry is proceeded. The learned counsel submits that even some of the charges in the departmental inquiry, though deal with negligence, the genesis is in the criminal case and those charges also cannot be proceeded with.

2.

The learned counsel relies on the 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 the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 4758 of 2014 and other companion matters decided on 23.9.2015. 3.

Mr. Malte, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are other charges also in the departmental inquiry, which cannot be stalled on account of pendency of the criminal case. Those charges can be proceeded with. It is stated that in the criminal case filed against the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, the charge-sheet is also filed. 4.

It has been held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9553 of 2016 that parallel proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceeding may not proceed and the criminal case was directed to be decided within one year and if the criminal case is

not decided within a year then the departmental inquiry may proceed further.

5.

In respect of charges which are not concerned with the criminal case then there would be no bar to proceed with the departmental proceedings. 6.

The charges in the departmental proceeding are as under :

" १. जयामुळे कंपनीचे नुकसान झाले आहे अशी अकमय हयगय. (मरावीिवकं मयारिदत कमरचारी सेवािविनयम २००५ मधील अनुसूची-ख मधील अनु. क.६) २. कंपनीशी अपामािणकपणा करणे.

(मरावीिवकं मयारिदत कमरचारी सेवािविनयम २००५ मधील अनुसूची-ख मधील अनु. क.१४) ३. कंपनीशी दोह ठरणारी कृतय करणे.

(मरावीिवकं मयारिदत कमरचारी सेवािविनयम २००५ मधील अनुसूची-ख मधील अनु. क.१५) ४. इलेिकटरक पोल पाडलयामुळे पोलीस केस न करणयासाठी लाचेची मागणी करन लाच सवीकारणे.

(मरावीिवकं मयारिदत कमरचारी सेवािविनयम २००५ मधील अनुसूची-ख मधील अनु. क.२१)

५. िनषकाळजीपणा व कामाकडे दुलरक करणे.

(मरावीिवकं मयारिदत कमरचारी सेवािविनयम २००५ मधील अनुसूची-ख मधील अनु. क.२३) ६. जनमानसातील पितमा मािलन करणे.

(मरावीिवकं मयारिदत कमरचारी सेवािविनयम २००५ अनु. क.८६(४) चया खालील िटपेनुसार) "

7.

Considering the above, we pass following order :

(i) The Sessions Judge, Biloli shall decide pending Sessions Case No. 5 of 2015, expeditiously and preferably within one year.

(ii) The respondents shall not proceed with the departmental inquiry with regard the charges concerning the criminal case.

(iii) Apart from the charges, which are to be dealt with by the criminal case, the departmental inquiry need not be stalled.

(iv) In case the Sessions Judge does not conclude the proceedings within one

year, then there would be impediment for the respondents to proceed with the departmental inquiry for all charges.

(v) Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

(vi) The registry shall communicate this order to the concerned Sessions Judge.

[SUNIL K.KOTWAL, J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.] dbm/