1 WP8266.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8266 OF 2010 KJ Ashokkumar Gupta )..Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution ) Company Ltd., & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.V.S.Kapse for the petitioner. Mrs.A.R.S.Baxi for respondent nos 1 & 2. Mrs.S.S.Bhende AGP for respondent no.3. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 6/4/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 The challenge in this petition is to the letters dated 20.3.2010 and 26.4.2010 issued by respondent no.2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer with the respondent-company. Departmental action was taken against him which proceeding ended up with Writ Petition No.6434 of 2003 2 WP8266.10.sxw filed by the petitioner. The said Writ petition was partly allowed. The operative order on the basis of which grievance of the petitioner can be answered, reads thus :- “The order imposing punishment on the petitioner, challenged in the petition, is modified. The order of reversion to the immediate lower post i.e Jr. Engineer is set aside. It is directed that the period of suspension of the petitioner from 25/3/2000 till the date of order 18/6/2002 shall be treated as suspension. Punishment of fine 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.” (emphasis supplied) 3 According to the respondents, the petitioner’s claim has been settled on the basis of the direction given by this Court. Whereas, the petitioner contends that the respondents have mis-interpreted the observation of this court which directs the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 25/3/2000 till the date of order i.e 18/6/2002 as liable for full pay. However, on plain reading of the above quote order of this Court, we find that this Court did not specifically direct the respondents to treat the said period as liable for full pay. 3 WP8266.10.sxw 4 According to the petitioner, the tenor of the order passed by this Court is to hold that the petitioner be inflicted with punishment for minor lapses. If it is so, learned Counsel contends that rule 87 of MSEDCL Employees’ Service Regulations would come into play and be applicable to the petitioner for which reason, the petitioner would be entitled for pay and allowances even for the period when the petitioner was under suspension. This is the limited controversy before us. 5 In the first place, the argument of the petitioner that Rule 87 would be the governing provision, is illadvised. The relevant provision, in our opinion, is, rule-88. Besides, Rule 87 which is pressed into service is subject to regulation-88. The same specifically deals with the suspension period and how that period has to be treated. Clause-(iv) of the said rule would answer the present controversy. The same reads thus :- “(iv) If after the proceedings are completed, the employee who had been suspended is reinstated. 4 WP8266.10.sxw (a) If he is wholly exonerated, he will be eligible to get the full arrears of pay less any amount paid as subsistence allowance and ; (b) in any other case, the Competent Authority or the Appellate Authority as the case may be, shall decide whether any part of the arrears of pay and allowances for the period of suspension shall be paid or not. Note : It is necessary to obtain approval of the Competent Authority to the payment of pay and allowances in cases where reinstatement is ordered by setting aside an order of dismissal/removal from service on the ground that it was passed by an authority subordinate to the Competent Authority or was so passed without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause in respect of such cases. In all such cases a report explaining why the proper procedure was not observed should invariably be sent to enable the Competent Authority to decide whether loss caused to Company should be recovered from the official concerned.” 6 On plain reading of this provision, it is clear that only if the petitioner was to be wholly exonerated, he would have become eligible to get the full arrears of pay less any amount paid as subsistence allowance. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has not been wholly exonerated. For this reason, sub- clause (b) of clause-(iv) of Rule 88 will apply to the case of the petitioner which provides that the Competent Authority or the Appellate Authority as the case may be, is expected to “issue 5 WP8266.10.sxw specific direction” as to whether part of the arrears of pay and allowances for the period of suspension shall be paid or not to the delinquent officer. In absence of specific direction, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that he would still be entitled to pay and allowance for the relevant period when he was placed under suspension. That is the specific order to be passed by the Competent Authority which is lacking in this case. In our opinion, no case is made out. Hence, petition is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)