:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6434 OF 2003 PETITION NO.6434 OF 2003 PETITION NO.6434 OF 2003 Ashokkumar Gupta Retired, 803, Usha Nagar, Village road, Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400 078 ..Petitioner. V/s 1. Maharasthra Electricity Board, Head office at Prakashgad, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 061. 2. D.K.Mali, Deputy Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., Tejashree, Karnik Road, Jahangir Maidan, Kalyan Zone, Kalyan 421 301, Dist. Thane 3. A.K. Pampattiwar Retired Technical Director (T & D.) MSEB, residing at Flat Flat No. 108, Shreeharsh Coop. Housing Society, Behind Orange City Hospital, Khamla Square, Ajani, Nagpur-440023. 4. Prabhakar Kukde Technical Member (T &D.) MSEB Officers’ Quarters, Tulsiwadi, Hajiwadi, Mumbai-400 034 5. M.D. Deshpande, Retired Asstt. Engineer, MSEB residing above Bank of Maharashtra, Muli Bunglow, near Rath Chakra’ Society, Indira Nagar, Char Baug, Chowk, Bombay Nasik High Way Nasik-9 :2: 6. S.M. Beknalkar Deputy Executive Engineer, Jambhul 220 K.V. Sub Station, MWSSB Compound, MIDC, Ambarnath Dist. Thane 7. P.R. Deshpande Retired Technical Director (T & D) MSEB residing at 602-B, Sumangal Apartments MODI Baug, Near Mhasoba Temple, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 016 8, State of Maharashtra ..Respondents. Mr. Balkrishna Joshi for the petitioner Mrs. A.R.S. Baxi for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 Mr. S.S. Bhende,AGP for respondent No.8. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2008 : 13TH MARCH, 2008 : 13TH MARCH, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) 1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.6.2002 passed by the Technical Director and Competent Authority as also order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 8th August, 2002 confirming that order. By the order dated 18.6.2002 the petitioner who was in service of Maharashtra State Electricity Board as Jr. Engineer has been reduced in rank for the misconduct committed by him. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is as under:- :3: "Reversion to the immediate lower post viz. Jr.Engineer till 31.7.2002 i.e. date of superannuation and to treat your suspension period from 25.3.2000 till the date of its revocation, as punishment" The learned Counsel appearing from the petitioner submits that even assuming that the finding of the Departmental Enquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty of charge Nos. 1,5 and 6 levelled against him still the punishment of reduction in rank imposed on him is excessive and disproportionate mainly for two reasons, one that the order imposing punishment was made on 18.6.2002 and the petitioner was to retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2002, the second reason is that the petitioner has been harshly treated. According to the record, Mr. Deshpande, Assistant Engineer, Mr. Zope, Executive Engineer, Mr. Parikh, Executive Engineer and Mr. P.R. Deore, Deputy Executive Engineer were chargesheeted in relation to the same incident on which the charge-sheet against the petitioner was based. As a result of the departmental enquiry, so far as Assistant Engineer, :4: Mr.Deshpande who is holding the same post as the petitioner, the punishment imposed was fine of 1/10 amount of the basic salary, so far as Mr. Zope, Executive Engineer is concerned punishment imposed on him was forfeiture of the amount of leave encashment and so for as Executive Engineer Mr. Parikh is concerned, the punishment imposed is withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect, so far as Mr. Deore, Deputy Engineer is concerned, he was reverted to the lower post for two years and his suspension period was treated as such. However the punishment imposed on Mr. Deshpande has been entirely set aside by the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel submits that, therefore, order of imposition of punishment of reduction in rank should be set aside and the order imposing lesser punishment should be passed. The learned Counsel appearing for MSEB on the other hand submits that considering the involvement of the petitioner he cannot claim parity with other officers involved in the same incident. According to her, responsibility of the petitioner was more and therefore, punishment imposed on the petitioner is just and reasonable and calls for no interference at the hands of this Court. We have :5: perused the record in the light of the rival submission, we find that the charge against the petitioner was of negligence in the performance of duty which led to the theft of electricity by a consumer, In relation to the same incident involving the same consumer, departmental enquiry was initiated against the several officers and punishment of reduction of rank was imposed only on two officers viz. Deshpande and petitioner. The punishment imposed on Deshpande is admittedly set aside by the Appellate authority and on the other officers, only minor punishments have been imposed. In our opinion considering that the petitioner was retiring within a month or so, the order imposing punishment of reversion of the petitioner to the lower rank was made only to affect the retiral benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled to. In our opinion the punishment is harsh and unreasonable considering,that on other officers, only minor punishments have been imposed. In our opinion the punishment imposed on Mr. Deshpande, who was also Assistant Engineer working along with the petitioner was fine only. Imposition of fine on the petitioner would be in the interest of justice in addition the order directing :6: treating the period of suspension as such. In our opinion therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the following order would meet the ends of justice. 2. The order imposing punishment on the petitioner, challenged in the petition, is modified. It is directed that the period of suspension of the petitioner from 25/3/2002 till the date of order 18/6/2002 shall be treated as suspension. Punishment of fine cumulative of 1/10 amount from basic salary of the petitioner is also imposed on the petitioner. The MSEB shall pay retiral benefits to the petitioner in accordance with this law. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. (D.K. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) DESHMUKH, J.) DESHMUKH, J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)