1 W.P.No.7685/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7685 OF 2011. 1. The Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Jintur Road, Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani. 2. The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Jintur Road, Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani. 3. The Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Sub-Division, Jintur, Tq.Jintur, Dist.Parbhani. ...Petitioners. Versus Milind S/o Dashrath Jadhav, Age 38 years, Occ.Service, R/o Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist.Parbhani. ... Respondent. ... Mr.A.M.Gaikwad, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate for the Respondent. ... 2 W.P.No.7685/11 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.11.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties,the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent has filed a complaint (ULP) No.75/2011, challenging the order of suspension issued by the petitioner. The Respondent also filed an application Exh.U-2 for stay of the said suspension order. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. Mr.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suspension is not by way of punishment but is only pending inquiry. Regulation 88 of the M.S.E.D.C.L. Service Regulation empowers the employer to suspend an 3 W.P.No.7685/11 employee who is charged for an act of misconduct or against whom a Criminal case is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In the present case, the Respondent is charged for misconduct and four (4) charges are levelled against the Respondent. Even charge-sheet has been issued and inquiry is in progress. The Industrial court has discussed the matter on merits, without evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, the said order can not be sustained. 5. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the Respondent supports the order and states that the said charges are without any basis. The Respondent has given the chart showing recoveries made and further the work done by the Respondent. Even the applications for earned leave are filed on record. All these aspects have been rightly considered by the Court. The Respondent could not have been suspended for such charges. Learned counsel further contends that there is no criminal case registered against the Respondent nor any such trial is pending. In such circumstances, the Industrial Court has rightly 4 W.P.No.7685/11 stayed the order of suspension. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order. In the present case, the suspension is not by way of punishment but is pending inquiry. The inquiry is initiated against the Respondent on account of the alleged misconduct, wherein four charges are culled out. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the charge- sheet is also issued and Respondent is not cooperating with the inquiry. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel disputes this fact. Be that as it may, the inquiry has commenced and the charge- sheet is also issued. Regulation 88 of the M.S.E.D.C.L. Service Regulation empowers the authority to suspend an employee who is charged for an act of misconduct. There is nothing observed by the Industrial Court about non- adherence to the Rule while suspending. The Industrial Court could not have dilated on merits of the charges as the same is yet to be proved. 7. In view of the above, the impugned 5 W.P.No.7685/11 order can not be sustained and as such is quashed and set aside. 8. Taking into account, the nature of the dispute, the Industrial Court shall decide the complaint (ULP) No.75/2011 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two (2) months from today. 9. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp768511