1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4692 OF 2010 Shri Arun Kumar Jagannath Patil : Petitioner V/s. The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.S.K.Shinde for the petitioner. Ms M.P.Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : JUNE 23, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the respondent no.4 (appellate authority) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority came to be confirmed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that summary procedure followed by the respondents stipulated in clause 90 of the Service Regulations of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is inconsistent 2 with Article 311 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. It is further contended that even if it is presumed that the summary procedure provided in clause 90 is sustainable in law, even then such procedure is required to be followed only when there is an obvious evidence of the misconduct having been committed by the delinquent or where the misconduct or misbehaviour is considered too grave which warrants to dispense with normal procedure prescribed in Service Regulation 88. It is contended that what would amount to grave misconduct has not been defined under the said procedure. It is submitted that thought the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting bribe by the Anti Corruption Bureau, however, till the criminal trial is concluded in conviction of the petitioner, it is not permissible to hold the petitioner guilty of committing grave misconduct before the criminal trial is over. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned orders are bad in law. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel and perused clause 90 which deals with summary proceedings which reads thus:- “90. Summary proceedings 3 (a) ....................................................... (b) where there is obvious evidence of the act of misconduct have been committed or, (c) where the misconduct or misbehaviour is considered too grave and convincing to warrant or justify the normal procedure to be followed.” (d) ........................................... Without following the procedure prescribed in Service Regulation 88 and take a decision on the evidence available after charge-sheeting the employee concerned, as prescribed in Annexure 3 and after giving him an opportunity to make a statement. The summary decision may be made effective forthwith unless stayed by the Appellate Authority.” A plain reading of the provisions of clause 90 makes it evident that where there is obvious evidence of the misconduct having been committed by the delinquent and where the misconduct or misbehaviour is considered too grave and convincing to warrant to undertake summary proceedings without following the procedure prescribed in Service Regulation 88. It is not in dispute that the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs.300/-. In our view, this is a very serious misconduct which entitles the authorities to undertake summary proceedings without following the procedure prescribed in Service Regulation 88. The mis-behaviour, on the face of it, is so grave and convincing to invoke the summary proceedings provided 4 under rule 90. 5. It is well-settled that merely because the criminal case is pending, that by itself does not take away the right of the parties to proceed against the delinquent departmentally. It is no doubt true that this depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the alleged misconduct is very grave and serious, coupled with the fact that regulation 90 provides for summary proceedings in such situation which were undertaken by the authorities and passed the impugned order. 6. In the circumstances, the orders passed by the respondents are just and proper and sustainable in law. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel vis-a-vis Article 311 of the Constitution, in our view, does not further the case of the petitioner, in the light of the facts of the present case. Hence, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)