WP/9636/2026 of MR. PRAFUL S/O ONKARLAL SHINGADE Vs THE MAHA. STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. THR. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, AND ORS. on 5 November 2026

1 129) WP 9636-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 9636 OF 2026 MR. PRAFUL S/O ONKARLAL SHINGADE VS THE MAHA. STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. THR. CHAIRMANCUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUMBAI & ORS. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Anubhav A. Mardikar, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATED : 05/11/2026.

Heard Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is an employee of respondent- the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) and is working as an Assistant Engineer (presently under suspension) on the establishment of respondent no. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that, in view of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the him, he was placed under suspension. The suspension order was passed on 18.02.2025. Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental inquiry has now culminated into the penalty order, which was passed on 12.01.2026.

3. Being aggrieved by such penalty imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing a First Appeal under Service Regulation No. 92 of the MSEDCL Employees’ Service Regulations, 2005. The 2026:BHC-NAG:15216-DB

2 129) WP 9636-26.odt aforesaid appeal was filed on 25.02.2026. A copy of the same is on record at page 175 (Ammex P-16).

4. Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal has been pending before the Appellate Authority for the last eight months. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the aforesaid appeal within a stipulated period.

5. Another bone of contention pertains to the petitioner's grievance regarding the suspension order dated 18.02.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015 on 16.02.2015 in the case of Shri Ajaykumar Choudhary V/s. Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held thus (pg. 56):- “We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution.

3 129) WP 9636-26.odt We recognise that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in the prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us”.

6. In view of the above, the continued suspension of the petitioner from 18.02.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has already submitted a representation on 28.05.2025 to respondent no. 4 - the Chief Engineer, MSEDCL, Nagpur Circle, Nagpur. A copy of which is on record at page 95 (Annexure P-9).

7. Shri Mardikar, learned counsel submits that though such representation was submitted on 28.05.2025, it has not yet been decided by respondent no. 4, despite the passage of more than one and a half years.

8. In view of the aforesaid grievances raised by the petitioner and the remedies already availed of by him, we dispose of the present Writ Petition as per the following order:- i) The First Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent no. 4 is directed to consider and decide the First Appeal filed 25.02.2026 by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. ii) The decision taken thereupon shall be

4 129) WP 9636-26.odt communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision. iii) So far as the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding his continued suspension is concerned, the representation is already submitted by the petitioner on 28.05.2025. Respondent no. 4 is the competent authority empowered to consider such representation. iv) In view of thereof, we direct respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation dated 28.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, more particularly, in the light of the Government Resolution dated 22.04.2025 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri Ajaykumar Choudhary (supra). v) The decision taken thereupon shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision. ( RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE , J.) B.T.K. Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 06/11/2026 15:16:37