Order wp 6952.2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 6952 of 2025 [Sandip Suresh Ubale vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P., Buldana and anr.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sunil Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. T. M. Zaheer, Advocate for the respondents CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 23-09-2026. On 19-8-2026, following order was passed. “1. Heard. 2. The benefit of the Gazetted Rank Grade- 2 pay-scale has been withheld by the respondents only on the count that Departmental Inquiry is pending against the petitioner. 3. In context with above, on 21.07.2026, the following order was passed :- “Heard. 2] The benefit of Gazetted Rank Grade – 2 has been withheld on the count that a departmental enquiry is pending. The enquiry commenced sometimes in November – 2022. It is kept in abeyance for decision by the Special Court appointed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, because the petitioner is facing trial for the charges under the provisions of the said Act. The question before respondent no.1 would be whether the enquiry can be kept in abeyance on this count alone. 3] Respondent no.1 shall file an affidavit in support of such a stand taken by him. 2026:BHC-NAG:12602-DB Order wp 6952.2025.odt 2 4] List on 28/7/2026.” 4. In response, Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit. The respondents are relying upon the Government Resolution dated 08.05.1991, to justify keeping in abeyance the Circular. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (1993) 3 SCC 679, held as under : “The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were Order wp 6952.2025.odt 3 stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 6. This judgment having been rendered subsequent to issuance of the Circular, the respondents will be bound by the law laid down in the said judgment. 7. The respondents shall accordingly take a decision and render necessary benefits to the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible. This exercise shall be done within four weeks from today. 8. List on 23.09.2026.” 2. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submits that necessary benefits have been extended to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would agree with such status. Thus, the grievance made in the petition stands redressed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) wasnik Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 17:53:20