MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in writ Petition No. 2057 of 1996 dated September 30,1996.

(2.) In view of the order we propose to pass, we consider it is not necessary to go into the merits or facts of the case in detail.

(3.) The respondent was in the employment of the appellant as Stores Officer. He was alleged] to have taken bribes and was charged with offences under Section 161 IPC read with sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947. That ended in his conviction. On that basis, the appellant on May 16, 1996 issued a show-cause notice asking the respondent to show cause why his services should not be terminated. The respondent, instead of giving a reply, moved the High Court challenging the show-cause notice itself but he could not secure an order of stay. In the absence of any stay order from the High Court, the appellant proceeded with the disciplinary enquiry and passed an order of termination on September 9, 1996. The High Court while taking up the writ petition which challenged the issue of show-cause notice, found that the order of termination passed on September 9, 1996 pending disposal of the writ petition in the High Court was hasty and malicious. On that ground, the High Court set aside the order of termination and incidentally found the order purported to have been passed under Regulation 10 (a) , was not correct and the order should have been passed in the light of regulation 90. If the order is to be passed under regulation 90, then a summary enquiry must have been conducted. It was argued before the high Court that the appellant has substantially complied with Regulation 90 and also contended that order under Regulation 10 (a) was proper. However, the High Court was not inclined to agree with that contention and therefore, set aside the order of the termination. Under these circumstances, this appeal is filed. We are of the view that the High Court was not right in quashing the termination order when the writ petition itself was one challenging the issue of show-cause notice.