The Supreme Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by former Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) employee Surekha Domaji Bele, holding that while the findings of misconduct against her will remain intact, the decision to dismiss her from service cannot stand in its present form.
A division bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh ruled that the disciplinary authority failed to independently reconsider the punishment after the misconduct was ultimately established through proceedings before the Labour Court.
Background of the Case
Surekha Domaji Bele joined the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board in 1985 and later served as an Upper Division Clerk. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her in 2006 on allegations including indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience of superior officers, tampering with official documents, negligence and misuse of company property.
A departmental inquiry was conducted, following which a show-cause notice proposing dismissal was issued in April 2008. However, the Labour Court later held that the inquiry was not fair. The matter was remanded, allowing the management to prove the charges by leading evidence before the Labour Court.
After considering the evidence, the Labour Court held that the misconduct stood proved. Based on that outcome, MSEDCL dismissed Bele from service in July 2017. The dismissal order was subsequently upheld by the Labour Court, Industrial Court and the Bombay High Court.
Bele then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court first rejected the employee's argument that the Executive Engineer lacked authority to dismiss her.
The Bench noted that the applicable service regulations specifically empowered officers of that rank to impose such punishment on employees in the relevant category.
However, the Court found merit in the employee's challenge to the process adopted while imposing the punishment.
Justice Kotiswar Singh observed that the original show-cause notice had been issued on the basis of a departmental inquiry that was later found defective.
"The disciplinary authority was required to apply its independent mind to the findings which ultimately survived after remand," the Court observed.
According to the Bench, once the Labour Court became the basis for establishing misconduct, the authority was required to reconsider the appropriate punishment and provide the employee an opportunity to respond before imposing the ultimate penalty.
The Court clarified that the finding of misconduct had already attained finality and could not be reopened. The issue before it was limited to the punishment process.
The Court also examined the employee's claim that she had not been paid subsistence allowance during her suspension, which lasted for nearly eleven years.
Observing that subsistence allowance is intended to ensure the basic survival of a suspended employee and enable an effective defence, the Bench held that the matter required reconsideration.
The Court noted that MSEDCL regulations required periodic review of suspension beyond six months. Since no material was shown indicating such review, the employer could not rely indefinitely on the original suspension conditions to deny subsistence allowance.
Another issue concerned the employer's decision to treat the entire suspension period as punishment in addition to dismissal.
The Court held that suspension and dismissal are distinct penalties under the service regulations.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court precedents, the Bench stated that an employee cannot ordinarily be subjected to multiple substantive penalties for the same misconduct unless expressly authorised by the governing rules.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order dated July 12, 2017, only to the extent of the punishment process.
The Court directed the competent authority to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the employee on the question of punishment and provide her an opportunity to submit a response.
The authority has been asked to pass a fresh, reasoned order after considering the gravity of the misconduct, the employee's service record and other relevant circumstances.
The finding that the employee committed misconduct remains undisturbed.
Case Details
Case Title: Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 11294 of 2025
Judge: Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: 11 June 2026
 Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)-300x169.webp)
