1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1089 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Having office at Tarabai Park Kolhapur .. Petitioner -versus Pundalik Dattatray Sawadkar residing at Anjur, Tal. Kagal, District:Kolhapur .. Respondent M/s A. R. s. Baxi for the petitioner. Mr M.S. Topkar, for respondent. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 22th March, 2010 Judgment 1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders whereby both the Courts below directed the respondent-original complainant to continue in the job inspite of termination notice whereby the petitioner considering the conviction order passed by the Competent Court, terminated the services as per Rule 10(a) Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. The relevant portion reads thus: “No person shall be eligible for appointment or shall be 2 continued in service of the Board, if he /she is declared insolvent by the Competent Court or convicted in a Criminal Court or any other Court of Law for any criminal offence inclusive of offence under the Untouchability Act, which is the opinion of the Competent Authority, is considered unsuitable for employment, in view of the surrounding circumstances and gravity of the offence. The services of an employee so convicted shall be liable for termination without the necessity of enquiry or any disciplinary action proceeding”. 2. From the above rule, it is very clear that the competent authority before taking any action need to exercise the discretion and by providing reasons in writing pass the order, based upon the conviction order passed by the competent Court. In the present case submission is that there are no sufficient reasons made out for termination which in my view is not correct basically in view of the existing rule as reproduced above. The fact about the conviction as mentioned above itself is sufficient reasoning just cannot be overlooked mainly because there is appeal filed and pending by respondent and there is order of suspension of sentence. 3. The point is not the pendency of the criminal appeal and/or suspension of sentence, but whether the petitioner has exercised its discretion within the framework of law and the rules in question. A plain reading of above rule itself in my view shows that in such circumstances and in view of such order of conviction, the 3 action so taken by the petitioner cannot be said to be in violation of rules and/or regulation and without authority. It is not acceptable that it is unreasoned order of termination. In my view all ingredients of the rules are available and the action so taken is within the framework, the record and the circumstances. Resultantly both the orders passed by learned Labour Court, as well as, by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, are quashed and set aside. The application as filed by the respondent-original complainant is dismissed. 4. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to observe that the main complaint bearing (ULP)No.172 of 2009 pending before the learned Labour Court, Kolhapur be heard expeditiously. 5. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)