Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Anoop V. Mohta and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.
Chandrashekhar S/o Tukarampant Madankar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary (Department of Energy) – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5995 & 5996 of 2016
Decided On : 24-10-2016
Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. Employees Service Regulation, 2012—Regulation 12—Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Employees Service Regulations, 2005, Regulation 16—Reversion in service to original post.—Reversion of employee appointed temporarily, to his original post after issuing show-cause notice to employee, not illegal.
A departmental inquiry was not necessary and that the Service Rules are appropriately applied by the MSETCL as there was sufficient material for the respondents to initiate action under 2012 Service Regulations read with Regulation 16 of the Recruitment Regulations, 1961. It is not a case that the MSETCL had no material against the petitioners about the false or incorrect information supplied by the petitioners or suppression of material and/or bogus certificates submitted to take advantage of the recruitment process.
Though in the facts of that case, as the respondents had continued for long years in service and their Employee Railway on its own volition had thought it appropriate to hold a departmental inquiry and there was no dispute in this context, nonetheless the Court observed that respondents therein were not justified to obtain such fraudulent employment orders. The Supreme Court observed that if any lenient view is taken then it would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which in the facts of the could not have been permitted.
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. Rule Returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties and their request heard finally.
2. This batch of petitions challenge the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (for short 'MSETCL') whereby the petitioners who were selected and temporarily appointed as Additional Executive Engineer (Transmission) (for short "the said post") have been removed from the said posts by the impugned orders. The impugned orders are dated 20 May 2016 and qua the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6343 of 2016 is dated 4 June 2016. Some of the petitioners who had participated in the selection process for the said post were in service candidates and being removed by the impugned orders are reverted to the post on which they were working prior to their selection.
3. These petitions involve common issues of facts and law. We have thus heard common arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced submissions in Writ Petition No. 5995 of 2016. We therefore, proceed to decide these petitions by this common judgment. On this background, we refer to the facts in writ petition No. 5995 of 2016.
4. The petitioner initially was appointed by MSETCL as Junior Engineer (Transmission) by an order dated 20 May 2010. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (Transmission) on 8 November 2013 and continued in service of the MSETCL.
5. In January 2014 MSETCL published Recruitment Advertisement No. 01 of 2014 advertising various posts in technical and on technical cadres which inter-alia included 76 posts of Deputy Executive Engineer (Transmission). 114 post of Assistant Engineer (Transmission) and 247 post of Junior Engineer (Transmission). These Petitions concern the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Transmission). The petitioner as also the other petitioners in the connected petitions, applied for the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Transmission) some as in-service candidates and one as a direct recruit. Under the selection procedure, the MSETCL on 26 February 2014 notified that an online test would be held on 12 March 2016.
6. Thereafter the MSETCL issued a Notification dated 29 May 2014 calling upon the candidates to submit documents for deciding the eligibility of candidates, under which various personal documents were to be submitted on or before 18 June 2014. The petitioners submitted the necessary documents showing their eligibility which included the documents showing experience of seven years in power transmission gained by him, as prescribed. As an illustration the Petitioner was issued experience certificates by one Ashtavinayaka Construction dated 30 June 2005 and 25 May 2010 and another experience certificate dated 10 June 2014 issued by the MSETCL. These certificates were pertaining to different periods of work experience. Similarly experience certificates were submitted by other petitioners.
7. MSETCL issued a schedule for interview by a notification dated 27 October 2014. It was informed that personal interview of shortlisted candidates would be taken from 10 November 2014 to 19 November 2014. The petitioners being shortlisted appeared for interview on 15 November 2014. The result of the recruitment was declared by the Chief General Manager (HR) of the MSETCL on 1 December 2014 and the select list and wait list candidates for the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Transmission), the nomenclature of which was revised as Additional Executive Engineer (Transmission) was notified. The name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 54 in the list of successful candidates. In pursuance of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Chief Engineer being the appointing authority issued an Office Order No. 18 dated 2 February 2015 appointing the petitioner to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Transmission)/ revised designation Additional Executive Engineer (Transmission). The petitioner joined the new post o
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
