-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.139 OF 2008 Prahalad Ramkrishna Sawant : Petitioner V/s. The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking & Ors. : Respondents ... Mrs.Neeta Karnik for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Talsania, Senior Advocate, with Mr.P.M.Palshikar i/b. M/s.M.V.Kini & Co., for the respondents. ... CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATE : JUNE 09, 2008. P.C. 1. The order of termination passed by the Deputy Chief Internal Auditor of the BEST on 17.1.2008 and consequent termination order is under challenge. 2. Under the service rules of Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, there are two internal appeals provided against the said order under rule 10.4. The petitioner has not exhausted this remedy of filing those appeals. Therefore, we find it appropriate not to entertain this petition filed directly against the -: 2 :- aforesaid action of termination of service of the petitioner by the respondent no.1. 3. The petitioner is at liberty to file aforesaid appeal within a period of two weeks from today to the appropriate authority. If such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal within six weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. In case the decision goes against the petitioner and the petitioner is required to file aforesaid second internal departmental appeal, the same shall be filed within 14 days from the decision of aforesaid first appeal. In order to enable the petitioner to file such a second appeal within 14 days, the copy of the first appellate authority’s judgement and order shall be given to the petitioner on the date of decision of the first appeal. If the second departmental appeal is filed accordingly, the same shall be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the second appeal, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the departmental authorities in these appeals will only consider the quantum of punishment. Therefore, we make it -: 3 :- clear that both the appellate authorities will not only consider the quantum of punishment, but will also consider the issues as to whether the charges levelled/framed have been proved or not, whether the charges have been levelled mala fidely as alleged by the petitioner. We make it clear that both the appellate authorities will consider all the points raised by the petitioner without being influenced by the fact that Mr.Uttam Khobragade, the 2nd respondent, is the head of the institution. 6. All other legal aspects have been kept specifically open for consideration by both the appellate authorities in accordance with law, after following the principles of audi alteram partem. 7. We make it clear that the delay in filing the first appeal is hereby condoned by this Court in view of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court prior to his dismissal challenging his suspension by way of the present petition, during the pendency of which aforesaid action of termination has been taken. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)