WP/1172/2011 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1172 OF 2011 Regional Executive Director No.1 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Thane & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Shri Ravindra Raghunath Divekar ... Respondent Ms.A.R.S. Baxi for Petitioners Mr.K.S. Bapat for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against the interim order passed by the Industrial Court on 13.1.2011. By this order, the Industrial Court has directed that the order of suspension issued against the respondent on 31.12.2009 be kept in abeyance. The main contention of the petitioner is that action was taken against the respondent-employee under Regulation 90 of the M.S.E.B. Employees' Service Regulations and, therefore, he could have been suspended for two years in view of certain administrative instructions issued by the Petitioner. It appears under Regulation 88 an employee who is facing investigations by Anti Corruption Bureau and/or criminal charges can be suspended. The power is vested with a committee to be named by the petitioners to review or revoke the suspension of such an employee. Admittedly, that procedure has not been carried out in the present case. WP/1172/2011 : 2 : The Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that the suspension has been effected under Regulations 88A and 88B. The learned advocate for the Petitioners submits that if the action is taken against the employee under Regulation 90, Regulation 88C is applicable and not Regulations 88A or 88B. Assuming the learned advocate is correct in stating that Regulations 88A and 88B are not applicable, in any case under Regulation 88C it is necessary to either review or revoke the suspension order issued against an employee after six months. The power vested in the petitioner is to suspend an employee for a limited for a period of six months and cannot be extended by administrative instructions when there are service regulations in place from 2005. 2. In these circumstances, the petition is rejected. In the event the Petitioner does not wish to permit the respondent employee to enter the premises and work, the petitioner must pay full wages for the period that the respondent employee is kept out of employment.