2026:BHC-AS:10646 AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2226 OF 2017 ATUL GANESH Jagannath Mailikarjuna Shinde, KULKARNI Green House, Room No.3, Rathodi Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Village, Marve Road, Malad (West), Date: 2026.03.05 11:44:01 +0530 Mumbai 400 095 … Petitioner V/s.

1. Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distributiion Co. Ltd. (H.O.), Prakashgad, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 041

2. The Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited, Viddyut Bhavan, Sector – 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.

3. Chief Engineer (Kalyan Zone), Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Tejashri Building, Kalyan (West), Thane. … Respondents Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh with Mr. Bhushan G. Deshmukh, Mr. Aryan M. Deshmukh, Mr. Aniket Kanawade, Ms. Karishma Shinde, Mr. Vaibhav Thorave, and Mr. Irvin D’Souza for the petitioner.

Mr. Prashant Chavan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravindra Chile, and Mr. Dheer Sampat i/by M.V. Kini &

Co., for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 20, 2026.

PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 5, 2026 JUDGMENT:

1. By the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dated 19 July 2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, in Revision Application (ULP) No.22 of 2014, whereby the Industrial Court confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 14 February 2014 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.75 of 2010.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows. The petitioner entered the service of the respondents on 15 March 1980 as a Lower Division Clerk at Khopoli, District Raigad. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (Accounts) and thereafter to the post of Assistant Accountant on 21 October 2001. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working in the audit section of the respondents at the O and M Division, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The petitioner was functioning under the direct supervision and control of the Divisional Auditor and the Executive Engineer, and was required to discharge duties in accordance with the guidelines governing internal audit in addition to clerical work. The work relating to revenue, including maintenance of records, remittance of revenue to the Head Office, and submission of reports, was assigned to the revenue section. The Deputy Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer were in charge of the sub-division and acted as the building authorities.

3. The Billing Authorities were required to coordinate revenue- related work, whereas the Divisional Accountant (Revenue) was stated to be fully responsible for all revenue matters. According to the petitioner, the audit section could effectively discharge its duties only if records from the revenue section were regularly made available and adequate manpower was provided. It is the petitioner’s case that there was no prevailing practice of subjecting monthly accounts to post-audit by the audit department, which caused inconvenience to the audit section and particularly to the petitioner. The petitioner addressed notes through the Divisional Auditor to the Executive Engineer highlighting incomplete documents and discrepancies. It is further contended that the Executive Engineer, Vashi Division, called upon the petitioner to furnish an explanation by letter dated 20 June 2004, to which the petitioner submitted his reply by letter dated 29 June 2004.

4. Respondent No.2 placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 6 July 2004 on allegations of improper audit of bank statements and BCDCR, coupled with charges of negligence. According to the petitioner, the Executive Engineer lacked competence to issue the suspension order, particularly when several employees were allegedly involved in the same misconduct and when respondent No.2 himself was a charge-sheeted employee facing disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner contends