2025:BHC-AUG:27028-DB (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12800 OF 2018 Abdul Saeed Abdul Razzak Shaikh Age : 63 years, Occu : Nil, R/o. B.No.16, Plot No.90, Kamgar Nagar, Hazarkoli Dhule Tq. & Dist. Dhule ..Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Energy Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32.

2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Prakash Gad, Bandra [East] Mumbai Through Managing Director

3. Superintendent Engineer/

First Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Circle Office, Dhule Plot No.8, Sahyadri Anandnagar, Deopur Dhule Tq. & Dist. Dhule

4. Chief Engineer/

Second Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhavan Old Industrial Area, Ajantha Road, Jalgaon Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon

5. The Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Urban/Rural Division, Sakri Road, Dhule Tq. & Dist. Dhule. ..Respondents ...

Mr. A.R. Syed, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent/State.

Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

...

(2)

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 09, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 JUDGMENT : (PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India takes an exception to the termination order dated 26.05.1995 by which the petitioner has been terminated from service while he was working as Sub-Engineer with respondent no.2/Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (‘MSEDCL’ for short). The petitioner has also impugned the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 20.07.2018 by which the termination order issued against the petitioner dated 26.05.1995 has been confirmed and has also assailed the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Second Appellate Authority, thereby confirming both the orders of termination and the order passed by the First Appellate Authority.

3. It is a case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Sub- Engineer by respondent no.2/MSEDCL vide order dated 12.03.1979. The petitioner further contends that while he was posted at Dhule workshop, he was entrusted with the work of cutting, welding and drilling of electric poles. He was further assigned the work of receiving and collecting the material from the Nasik Store and as and (3)

when the said material was required, he used to send the said material as per the instructions of his superior authorities. It is further the case of the petitioner that one Mr. G.K. Garge was working as Deputy Executive Engineer and one Mr. B.S. Pagar was working as Executive Engineer. The petitioner was working under them and thus, he was under obligation to follow their instructions. It is further contended that the petitioner used to issue the material as per demand raised by way of indent. It is further contended that as per instructions of the superior authorities on some occasions, the material from the workshop was issued without indent by recording an entry in the daily progress register. It is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of indent, the rest of the formalities were being completed including issuance of gate pass. The petitioner has tried to contend that there were as many as 34 instances of like nature by which even without indent and gate pass, the material was taken out of the workshop.

4. The petitioner also further asserted that as the work of installation of electric poles was in progress at Muslim Nagar and other adjoining areas, the petitioner was directed to issue 10 poles on 15.05.1993 and 5 poles on 17.05.1993 and those 15 poles were sent outside the workshop without gate pass. However, there is an entry effected in the daily progress register.

(4)

5. The petitioner has also further asserted that