Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Saeed Abdul Razzak Shaikh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging his termination from service as Sub-Engineer with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) and the subsequent appellate orders confirming that termination. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer on 12.03.1979 and was posted at Dhule workshop where he handled cutting, welding, drilling, receiving and issuing electric poles. In May-June 1993, he allegedly issued electric poles without indent or gate pass on instructions of superior officers, leading to FIRs for theft of poles and his suspension on 10.06.1993. A departmental inquiry was conducted; the petitioner alleged that documents were not supplied, that Mr. G.K. Garge and Mr. B.S. Pagar, who were involved in the incidents, acted as company representatives and disciplinary authority, violating natural justice and showing bias. He also sought stay of inquiry pending criminal trial, but inquiry report was submitted on 30.01.1995 leading to a show cause notice and ultimately termination order dated 26.05.1995. His first appeal was rejected on 09.01.1996 and second appeal on 17.03.2001. In Writ Petition No.4951 of 2002, the High Court set aside those orders and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Authority, but after remand, the First Appellate Authority again rejected the appeal on 20.07.2018 and the Second Appellate Authority confirmed on 05.10.2018. The petitioner relied on his acquittal in two criminal cases, R.C.C. No.104 of 1993 and R.C.C. No.208 of 1993, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule, to argue that the departmental punishment was unsustainable. Respondents filed affidavit contending that charges were proved, documents were supplied, and acquittal did not bar departmental inquiry because more witnesses were examined. The High Court heard arguments, reserved judgment on September 9, 2025, and pronounced judgment on September 30, 2025. The extracted text does not include the final reasoning or operative order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Natural Justice and Non-Supply of Documents - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226; Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employee's Service Regulations - Petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, alleged that documents like daily progress register were not supplied despite request, violating natural justice; respondents contended all documents were supplied. The High Court was called upon to examine whether denial of documents vitiated inquiry (Paras 6,8,12). B) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Bias and Interested Officer as Inquiry Representative - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226; Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employee's Service Regulations - Petitioner objected to participation of Mr. Garge and Mr. Pagar, who were allegedly involved in the incidents, as company representatives and competent authority; he argued bias vitiated inquiry. Respondents argued petitioner participated in inquiry and could not raise objection later. The High Court examined whether bias existed (Paras 7,8,9,12). C) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Effect of Acquittal in Criminal Case - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226; Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employee's Service Regulations - Petitioner was acquitted in two criminal cases (R.C.C. No.104 of 1993 and R.C.C. No.208 of 1993) regarding same allegations; he contended acquittal warranted quashing of termination. Respondents maintained that departmental inquiry is independent and more witnesses were examined. The High Court considered whether acquittal bars departmental punishment (Paras 11,12). D) Service Law - Appellate Remedies - Scope of Appellate Orders - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226; Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employee's Service Regulations - First and Second Appellate Authorities rejected petitioner's appeals confirming termination; earlier High Court remand in Writ Petition No.4951 of 2002 directed proper consideration, but authorities again rejected appeals. The High Court examined validity of appellate orders (Paras 9,10,11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination order dated 26.05.1995 and subsequent appellate orders dated 20.07.2018 and 05.10.2018 violated principles of natural justice, were vitiated by bias due to involvement of Mr. Garge and Mr. Pagar, and whether acquittal of the petitioner in criminal cases warranted quashing of the departmental punishment.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in extracted text
Law Points
- Judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Natural justice in departmental inquiries
- Bias and participation of interested officers vitiates disciplinary proceedings
- Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically bar departmental inquiry
- Appellate remedies under Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employee's Service Regulations
