1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3932 OF 2008 ... Executive Engineer MSEDCL and another ...PETITIONER V E R S U S Mukund s/o Narharrao Chavare ..RESPONDENT. Shri. Shri.S.M. Godsey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.M.Gaikwad Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 15th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. The petition arises out of interlocutory orders filled by the non applicant-respondent challenging the show cause notice issued by the petitioners against the respondent for termination. The application filed by the present petitioner under section 30 (2) of the MRTU and PULP Act has been allowed and the petitioners have been restrained from terminating the services of the respondent. The revision filed by the present petitioners has also been rejected. From the perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the notice of termination impugned in the complaint ULP No.94/2007 dated 19.12.2007 is on the ground of the conviction of present respondent in anti corruption case. Admittedly, the conviction for the criminal charges has been stayed by this Court in criminal Appeal No.510/2007. In that view of the matter, I find that, the very bars on which the show cause notice is issued, itself does not survive. Taking into consideration, this fact, I find that the pendency of this petition or the pendency of the complaint before the learned labour court would serve no purpose, except addition of two pending cases before the High Court and labour Court. In that view of the matter, Writ Petition can be disposed off by quashing and setting 2 aside the issuance of show cause notice dated 19.12.2007. In that view of the matter, following order is passed. O R D E R 1. Notice of termination dated 19.12.2007 is quashed and set aside. 2- Since the notice of termination order itself is quashed and set aside by this Court, the complaint ULP No.94/2007 also stands disposed off. however, it is made clear that, in the event, criminal appeal filed by the present respondent is decided against the said appellant (respondent) the present petitioners would be entitled to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp3932.08