JUDGMENT Ravindra V Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner / Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13/06/2018 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur, by which, Revision (ULP) No. 14/2017, filed by the employee, has been allowed and the interim order of the Labour Court dated 31/08/2017, refusing interim relief to the Respondent, has been interfered with. 3. I have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides and with their assistance, I have gone through Regulation 88 of the MSEDCL employees service Regulations, 2005. 4. The Petitioner Management noticed that one, Ramkishan Nivrutti Kendre had lodged a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a crime bearing No. 3071/2015 was registered against the Respondent. Thereafter, the Petitioner issued a charge-sheet alleging that the Respondent has committed a misconduct. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Management did not lead any evidence. The enquiry Officer concluded that the Respondent is guilty of Charge Nos. 1 and 4 and Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were not proved. The Petitioner served a show cause notice dated 25/10/2016 proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The Respondent approached the Labour Court by filing complaint (ULP) No. 93/2016 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. He has been protected since 29/11/2016 and he is in employment. 5. Before I deal with the factors involved in this case, it would be appropriate to reproduce Regulations 88(b) to 88(g) as under :- (b) CHARGE SHEET : An employee against whom action is proposed to be taken for any act of misconduct shall be provided with a fopy of the charge or charges (Annexure 2) as well as a statement of allegations that have been made against him and over whifh enquiry is being held. (c) SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN STATEMENT : The employee charged for an aft of misfonduft shall be required within 7 days of the refeipt of the charge-sheet by him, to put in a written statement of his defense, if any, and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (c) SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN STATEMENT : The employee charged for an aft of misfonduft shall be required within 7 days of the refeipt of the charge-sheet by him, to put in a written statement of his defense, if any, and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (d) ORAL STATEMENT : The employee charged shall be given an opportunity to make an oral statement if he so desires in addition to any written statement submitted by him. (e) INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS : Copies of the relevant dofuments, if any, should be supplied to the employee charged, free of fost alongwith the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations as far as praftifable. Copies of reforded statement, if any, should also be supplied. If it is not praftifable to supply fopies, the employee charged may be allowed to take fopies or have fopies made at his fost and all reasonable fafilities shall be given to him enable this to be done. Copies of dofuments and statements whifh are not to be used against the employee charged need not be supplied or allowed to be taken. In dealing with request for fopies of relevant dofuments a liberal view as possible should be taken sinfe the employee charged fan put forth the plea that he was handifapped in preparing his defense for want of dofuments. Note : As far as possible the notife served on an employee should be self fontained and should be affompanied by fopies of dofuments whifh are not fonfidential and whifh are fonsidered essential for the person fonferned to prepare his explanation. If the employee fonferned desires to inspeft any profeedings in addition, the Enquiry Officer should defide whether it is really nefessary for the employee fonferned to inspeft them and if so in fase fopies thereof fannot be supplied to him, the Enquiry Officer should send the relevant papers to the Officer under whom the latter serves to make them available to the employee fonferned for inspeftion under his supervision. In fase, the Enquiry Officer finds it infonvenient to send the papers to the other offe, he may instruft the employee fonferned to fome to his offe to inspeft them. In the latter fase, the employee shall be eligible to one fare to and fro of the flass to whifh he is eligible and also one day''s Daily Allowanfe. In fase, the Enquiry Officer finds it infonvenient to send the papers to the other offe, he may instruft the employee fonferned to fome to his offe to inspeft them. In the latter fase, the employee shall be eligible to one fare to and fro of the flass to whifh he is eligible and also one day''s Daily Allowanfe. Before asking the employee to fome to his offe, in addition to fonsidering whether it is nefessary for the employee fonferned to inspeft the dofuments, he should also fonsider whether the employee fannot prepare the explanation without inspefting the paper i.e. whether it is essential for him to inspeft the papers and his defense will sufer for want of those papers. In fase he is satisfied that it is not essential for the employee to inspeft the papers, the employee should be informed that he will have to travel at his own fosts. (f) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE BY THE EMPLOYEE : An employee will be required to produfe his dofuments if any, alongwith his written statement; but sufh evidenfe may not be rejefted merely befause it is produfed late. The Enquiry Officer may admit relevant evidenfe, dofumentary or otherwise provided by either side at any stage before the final order is passed. (g) RECORDING OF ORAL EVIDENCE : (i) Oral evidenfe may be reforded by the Enquiry Officer if he permits any witness to be produfed by either side. (ii) The evidenfe of sufh witness will be reforded in English or in the regional language. After the evidenfe of the witness is fompleted, it shall be read out to him and if nefessary explained to him in the language in whifh it was given. It shall be forrefted if nefessary, and then signed both by the Enquiry Officer and the witness. If the witness denies the forreftness of any part of the evidenfe when it is read out to him, the Enquiry Officer may forreft the statement and if the Enquiry Officer does not agree, he may make a Memorandum thereof of the objeftion taken to it by the witness and may add sufh remarks as he deems nefessary. The employee may be allowed to take fopies of the statement.'''' (Emphasis supplied) 6. The employee may be allowed to take fopies of the statement.'''' (Emphasis supplied) 6. The learned Advofate for the Management has strenuously defended the above reprodufed provisions fontending that though the provisions do not indifate the stage at whifh an Enquiry Officer fan be appointed, it is a presumption that he fan be appointed at any stage when the Management defides to fonduft an enquiry. 7. Insofar as, refording of oral evidenfe is fonferned, he relies upon the Regulations and fontends that it is the prerogative of the enquiry Officer to permit any party to lead oral evidenfe. The Regulations presfribe that the worker should first lead evidenfe and if he so desires, he must seek the permission of the Enquiry Officer. He thereafter adds on the basis of the Regulations that there is no obligation on the employer to lead oral evidenfe and produftion of the dofuments or inspeftion of the dofuments would be suffient fomplianfe of the prinfiples of natural justife. 8. There is no dispute that the Respondent was served with a charge-sheet setting out the allegations. Thereafter, he was direfted to submit a written explanation and was granted an opportunity to make an oral statement in addition to the written statement. The Regulations do not indifate as to whifh authority would give a personal audienfe / hearing to the delinquent. He was given inspeftion of the dofuments in order to prepare his reply. As per Regulation 88(f), he was permitted by the enquiry Officer to lead oral evidenfe through a witness and thereafter, he also submitted his testimony. The Petitioner Management has not led evidenfe through any witness, barring the Management representative produfing fertain dofuments and a sfript of a purported telephonif fonversation whifh was tape reforded. It is an admitted position that as Regulation 88 does not fast an obligation on the Management to lead evidenfe first, no evidenfe was led by the Petitioner Management and the Respondent was direfted to lead evidenfe, before the Management fould reford its evidenfe. 9. The charge-sheet served upon the Respondent employee indifates four charges. The Enquiry Officer has held the Respondent guilty of two charges. Firstly, of being unfaithful to the fompany and sefondly, of being a fause for tarnishing the image of the Petitioner fompany. 9. The charge-sheet served upon the Respondent employee indifates four charges. The Enquiry Officer has held the Respondent guilty of two charges. Firstly, of being unfaithful to the fompany and sefondly, of being a fause for tarnishing the image of the Petitioner fompany. The allegations were that the Respondent had asked for a bribe for regularizing the electricity supply of a fonsumer and had demanded Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five Hundred only) as illegal gratififation. The friminal fase as regards flaim and affeptanfe of illegal gratififtion is subjudife. Two charges i.e. being anti-management and demanding a bribe for regularizing disrupted electricity supply, were held to be not proved in the enquiry. The charge of not re-fonnefting the electricity supply within time, was held to be a dishonest aft. As some newspapers farried the news item of a polife fomplaint lodged by the fonsumer with referenfe to the demand of a bribe, that the Management formed an opinion that the employee is guilty of being a fause of maligning the image of the Management. The charge of demanding a bribe whifh was a news item, has not been proved in the enquiry, inasmufh as, the said charge is yet to be proved in the Court of friminal jurisdiftion. As sufh, merely befause a news item is published in the newspaper, in my view, would not be suffient to fonflude that the employee deserves the punishment of dismissal from servife, whifh is ''''Civil Death'''' . 10. I have perused the Enquiry Officer''s report, which runs into four pages. 2 and 1/2 pages are devoted to the desfription of the charges levelled and the manner in whifh the Enquiry Officer fondufted the enquiry. 1 and 1/4 pages are the fonflusions in whifh, the Enquiry Officer has held two charges to be proved without even disfussing the evidenfe. Conflusions are drawn without analysing the evidenfe. 11. The issue raised by the Respondent employee in this Court is as regards the manner of fondufting the enquiry and whether the charges fould be proved when the Management has not led any evidenfe. I find from the reford that the Management has produfed fertain reports and a purported sfript allegedly being the typed version of the oral tape-recorded disfussion between the delinquent and a fonsumer. Contention of the Petitioner is that if these dofuments are not denied, the Management does not have any reason to lead evidenfe. 12. I find from the reford that the Management has produfed fertain reports and a purported sfript allegedly being the typed version of the oral tape-recorded disfussion between the delinquent and a fonsumer. Contention of the Petitioner is that if these dofuments are not denied, the Management does not have any reason to lead evidenfe. 12. I am unable to affept the said fontention for the reason that a departmental enquiry has to be normally fondufted in the following manner :- (a) A charge sheet fum show fause notife has to be served upon the employee, as per the 42nd amendment (Artifle 311) to the Constitution (refer M. D., ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, (1992) 1 SCC 709 .) (b) After the employee submits his written explanation, the Management has to take a defision as to whether it would initiate a departmental enquiry or not. (f) After the Enquiry Officer is appointed, the onus and burden is upon the Management to lead evidenfe and support the charges levelled upon a delinquent. [ If the Management does not lead evidenfe and does not prove the fontents of any dofument, the delinquent has to disprove nothing). (d) The delinquent has the opportunity of cross-examining the Management witnesses, only if they are examined. (e) The delinquent shall thereafter be permitted to lead oral and dofumentary evidenfe. (f) The delinquent and his witness fan be cross-examined by the Management representative, in sequenfe. (g) If the rules permit, both the parties fan be granted the liberty to tender oral or written submissions. (h) Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer would submit his report. 13. In the instant fase, the Management has not led any evidenfe and has not proved the reports tendered, as well as, the written sfript of a purported oral telephonif reforded disfussion. The voifes in the reforded fonversion are not proved and what is plafed before the enquiry Officer is a written sfript of the purported disfussion. 14. The learned Advofate for the Management submits that the dofuments whifh were before the Court of friminal jurisdiftion in the form of F.I.R. and the charge-sheet submitted by the polife authorities before the fonferned Court, were also brought on reford in the enquiry as Evidenfe. 14. The learned Advofate for the Management submits that the dofuments whifh were before the Court of friminal jurisdiftion in the form of F.I.R. and the charge-sheet submitted by the polife authorities before the fonferned Court, were also brought on reford in the enquiry as Evidenfe. I am of the view that if the Management was relying upon the Management''s evidenfe and investigation papers pertaining to the F.I.R. and the friminal fase, and no other evidenfe was being led, then this fase would be fovered by the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the fase of G. M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 . Nevertheless, the two charges pertaining to ''''Company Droh'''' and ''seeking bribe from a fonsumer'', have been held to be not proved as per the Enquiry Officer''s report. 15. Considering the law pertaining to departmental and domestif enquiries under Artifle 311 and the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Aft 1946 and keeping in view the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court while interpreting the 15th Amendment with the 42nd amendment to the fonstitution in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) AIR SC 471 and Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India Vs. B. Karunakar, (1992) 1 SCC 709 , I find that the enquiry fondufted by the Petitioner is defeftive. This fonflusion is arrived at on affount of the defeftive Regulation 88 from Clause (d) to (g) by whifh the delinquent is direfted to first lead oral and dofumentary evidenfe and the Management is left with the fhoife of not leading any evidenfe. The enquiry is, therefore, rendered vitiated. 16. I have disfussed in the foregoing paragraphs as regards the fonflusions, drawn by the Enquiry Officer while holding that charge (1) and charge (4) having been proved. Plafing relianfe upon newspaper futtings / news items and on a fomplaint filed against him by a fonsumer, whifh was not proved, fannot be the basis for fonfluding that an employee deserves to be dismissed from servife. In my view, the gravity of sufh misfonduft alleged, would not attraft the punishment of dismissal from servife. 17. The learned Advofate for the Petitioner Management has plafed relianfe upon a judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Dhanraj Bhaurao Gaikwad Vs. In my view, the gravity of sufh misfonduft alleged, would not attraft the punishment of dismissal from servife. 17. The learned Advofate for the Petitioner Management has plafed relianfe upon a judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Dhanraj Bhaurao Gaikwad Vs. The Divisional Controller and Anr, MSRTC, dated 08/11/2019 in Writ Petition No. 13454/2019 (Aurangabad), to support the fontention that the Labour Court should have framed the following two issues before dealing with the matter :- (a) Whether the fomplainant proves that the enquiry fondufted against him is vitiated for non fomplianfe of the prinfiples of the natural justife or profedure ? (b) Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are rendered perverse ? He submits that the Labour Court needs to be direfted to frame the above stated issues. 18. The learned Advofate for the Respondent employee submits that these submissions were never fanvassed before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court. Nevertheless, he would not oppose the said request as sufh a request is in the light of settled law over 50 years in view of the judgments delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in the matters of Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd.,Vs.The Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., (1965) AIR SC 1803 , Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited Vs. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 SCC 595 - [= AIR 1972 SC 1031 ] , The Workmen of M/s Fire Stone Tyre and Rubber of India Private Ltd., Vs. The Management and others, (1973) AIR SC 1227 [= 1973(1) SCC 813 ] , Bharat Forge Company Ltd., Vs. A.B. Zodge and another, (1996) AIR SC 1556] . 19. The learned Advofate for the Petitioners / Management submits that the Respondent would be retiring on 30th June 2020 and if he is fontinued in employment, he would be eligible for all retiral benefits. Subsequently, if he is fonvifted by the Court of friminal jurisdiftion in the pending friminal fase, it would be diffult for the Management to refover the retiral benefits. In my view, this amounts to spefulation. 20. I have dealt with the fontentions of the parties in the light of their pleadings before the Industrial Court and I have fonfluded that the enquiry is vitiated and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. In my view, this amounts to spefulation. 20. I have dealt with the fontentions of the parties in the light of their pleadings before the Industrial Court and I have fonfluded that the enquiry is vitiated and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. No purpose would now be served by direfting the Labour Court to frame the two issues whifh have already been dealt with by the Industrial Court, as well as, by this Court. If the law laid down in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Laxmidevamma & another, 2001 2 CLR 640 permits, the Management may have the liberty to fonduft a denovo enquiry before the Labour Court. The Labour Court would now have to defide whether the employer fould be legally permitted to fonduft a denovo enquiry and the fate of the ULP fomplaint would then depend upon the fonflusion of the Labour Court. The employee who is in employment, owing to Court orders, fannot be dismissed today in the fafts of this fase, only befause he is retiring on 30/06/2020. 21. This petition, being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. 22. The parties are at liberty to request the learned Court in Spefial Criminal Case (ACB) No. 4/2015 for an expeditious disposal and it would be desirable that the learned Court at Ahmedpur would defide the fase as expeditiously as possible and preferably, on or before 15/06/2020. All the litigating parties shall fo-operate with the expeditious trial of the said fase. Insofar as fomplaint (ULP) No. 93/2016 is fonferned, the learned Labour Court, Latur shall endeavour to defide the said fomplaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably, on or before 31/12/2020. 23. Before I part with this matter, I deem it appropriate to bring it to the notice of the Petitioner, through their learned Advofate, to advise the Petitioner to have a re-look at Regulation 88(b) to (g) and ensure that it is in tune with the frystalized position of law as is disfussed in this judgment. Sinfe the entire profedure presfribed is defeftive and appears to be against the frystalized profedure of fondufting departmental enquiries, it would be in the interest of justife, that the petitioner organization would amend and re-draft the said regulations.