Thane Municipal Corporation Panchpakhadi vs Shri Prabhakar Chango Shinde
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010274112011
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5672 OF 2011
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9837 OF 2022
Thane Municipal Corporation ...Petitioner
: Versus :
Prabhakar Chango Shinde ...Respondent
Mr. Mandar Limaye with Mr. Vedant Bende, for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.R. Nair for the Respondent.
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Reserved On: 22 OCTOBER 2026.
Pronounced On: 2 NOVEMBER 2026.
Judgment:
1) The Petition raises an issue as to whether a delinquent
employee of Municipal Corporation, who had admitted the allegation of
misappropriation of municipal funds, can be permitted to be let off the
hook by restraining the disciplinary authority from imposing any
punishment on him? Respondent in the present case has admitted
PAGE NO. 1 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
misappropriation of huge amount of Rs. 2,77,116/- in a short duration of
3 months in the year 2004 by not depositing in municipal accounts the
amounts collected by him towards water supply from consumers. He
admitted the allegation, refunded the misappropriated amount and
prayed for pardon. The Municipal Corporation took a lenient view and
proposed imposition of punishment of only reversion to the lower post
on the Respondent. The Respondent thereafter turned around and
approached the Industrial Tribunal challenging the show cause notice
and secured a stay order on proposed punishment. The Industrial
Tribunal has set aside the show cause notice on the ground that
admission of allegations in the reply to the chargesheet was not
sufficient and there ought to have been formal recording of plea of
admission. During pendency of the Petition, Respondent has retired
from service on 31 July 2021 after working on the promotional post.
Therefore, whether Respondent can be permitted to go scot-free merely
because he has retired from service is also an issue for consideration in
the present petition.
2) Thane Municipal Corporation has filed the present Petition
challenging the judgment and order dated 18 April 2011 passed by the
learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane allowing Complaint (ULP) No.
44 of 2009 filed by the Respondent. By the impugned order, the
Industrial Court has held that Petitioner has committed unfair labour
practice under Item-9 of Schedule-IV of Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
( MRTU & PULP Act) . The Industrial Tribunal has accordingly quashed
and set aside final notice dated 4 February 2009 issued by the Petitioner
PAGE NO. 2 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
proposing to impose punishment of reversion to the lower post on the
Respondent.
3) Petitioner is a Municipal Corporation established under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 for the
City of Thane. Respondent was appointed in the municipal service as
Clerk on 14 March 1983. He was promoted to the post of A-Grade Clerk
on 22 July 1993. Respondent was employed at the relevant time on the
post of ‘A’ Grade Clerk in the Water Supply Department, Manpada. He
was placed under suspension by order dated 29 March 2005. A
disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him by chargesheet dated 15
July 2006 alleging six charges. In the first charge, it was alleged that
during 1 April 2004 to 15 July 2004, Respondent recovered amounts
towards water bills, but in the amount deposited with the Municipal
Corporation, there was difference of amount of Rs.1,46,533/-. In the
second charge, it was alleged that Petitioner deposited amount of
Rs.40,000/- out of Rs.1,46,533/- only after discovery of his misconduct
and promised to refund the balance amount. Accordingly, he paid
Rs.40,000/- on 21 February 2005, Rs.50,566/- on 7 April 2005 and
Rs.55,967/- on 16 April 2005. It was alleged that he admitted misconduct
of not depositing amount of Rs.1,46,533/- in a timely manner. In the
third charge, it was alleged that while working in the Water Supply
Department from 1 April 2004 to 18 July 2004, Respondent did not
record entries relating to receipt of payments and it was found that in
every receipt book, he has made only 2/4 receipts by keeping the other
receipts blank. In the fifth charge, it was alleged that Respondent
committed misconduct of amount of Rs.1,46,533/-. In the sixth charge, it
PAGE NO. 3 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
was alleged that in the audit report of Chief Auditor, it was later
discovered that he had actually misappropriated the amount of
Rs.2,77,116/-.
4) Respondent replied to the chargesheet on 17 July 2006 and
raised the defense that he had loans on account of which certain
mistakes were committed by him. He submitted that the entire amount
of Rs.2,77,116/- has been paid by him to the Municipal Corporation. He
requested for a pardon. The Municipal Corporation revoked the
suspension on 4 July 2007. After considering the reply of the Petitioner,
it was concluded that he admitted all the charges and accordingly, the
Municipal Corporation proposed imposition of penalty of reversion from
A-Grade Clerk to the post of Clerk and issued a show cause notice dated
4 February 2009 to the Respondent.
5) Respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal, Thane by
filing Complaint (ULP) No. 44 of 2009 challenging the show cause notice
dated 4 February 2009. The Complaint was resisted by the Petitioner by
filing a Written Statement. The Industrial Court framed issues based on
pleadings. The parties filed purshis not intending to lead oral evidence.
By judgment and order dated 18 April 2011, the Industrial Court has
allowed the Complaint filed by the Respondent and held that the
Petitioner has committed unfair labour practice under Item-9 of
Schedule-IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The Tribunal has set
aside the final notice of reversion dated 4 February 2009. Aggrieved by
Industrial Court’s judgment and order dated 18 April 2011, Petitioner-
PAGE NO. 4 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
Municipal Corporation has filed the present Petition. By order dated 26
March 2012, the Petition was admitted and interim relief was refused.
6) During pendency of the Petition, Respondent has retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31 July 2021.
Petitioner has filed Interim Application No. 9837 of 2022 for early
hearing of the Petition. The learned counsel for Respondent has
complained that Respondent’s gratuity is withheld. He submitted that
the Petitioner is in extreme financial difficulty since his wife is suffering
from ailments. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.
7)
Mr. Limaye, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner-Municipal Corporation has submitted that the Industrial
Tribunal has grossly erred in entertaining the complaint against a mere
show cause notice proposing to impose penalty on the Respondent. That
the impugned order is without jurisdiction as it sought to interdict the
disciplinary proceedings by challenging a mere to a show cause notice.
He submits that Respondent is found to be guilty of serious misconduct
of temporary misappropriation of amounts collected by him towards
water supply bills. That Respondent deposited misappropriated amount
after being caught. That he admitted all the charges and therefore no
inquiry was necessary. He submits that despite committing grave
misconduct of misappropriation, penalty of only reversion was proposed.
He therefore submits that the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal
deserves to be set aside and the Municipal Corporation be permitted to
impose the proposed penalty on the Respondent.
PAGE NO. 5 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
8) Per-contra
, Mr. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent opposes the Petition submitting that the Industrial Court
has properly appreciated the entire material on record for arriving at the
conclusion that there is no admission of charges in the present case.
That Respondent merely explained his conduct by way of reply dated 17
July 2006, which does not contain any statement to the effect that he
admitted the charges. That the Petitioner-Municipal Corporation
unconditionally withdrew the suspension order on 4 July 2007. That after
one year and 7 months, Petitioner turned around and issued show cause
notice for punishment.
9)
Mr. Nair submits that the impugned show cause notice is in
violation of the provisions of Rule 8(5)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 ( MCS Rules ). That mere use
of the phrase ' inadvertent mistake ' in the reply dated 17 July 2006 cannot
be treated as admission of misconduct. That Rule 8(5)(a) requires
examination of evidence and recording of distinct findings on each
individual charge. That preliminary say submitted by the Respondent
cannot be misconstrued as a formal defense. That there is flagrant
violation of principles of natural justice as no inquiry is conducted. That
therefore commission of unfair labour practice under Item-9 of
Schedule-IV is clearly established. That since there is systematic failure
to implement the conditions of service/contract, unfair labour practice
under Item-9 is clearly established. Mr. Nair has repeatedly emphasized
the financial difficulties of the Respondent and the ailments suffered by
the Respondent and his wife.
PAGE NO. 6 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
10)
Lastly, Mr. Nair submits that the petition is actually
rendered infructuous on account of Respondent's retirement from
service. Now it is not open to impose the proposed punishment on the
Respondent. That the entire suspension period is erroneously excluded
for pensionary purposes though the same is required to be treated as
period spent on duty. That Respondent's gratuity is also illegally
withheld. That Respondent is a handicapped senior citizen undergoing
extreme financial restraints. That his wife is suffering from blood cancer
and health complications requiring expenses of Rs.1.13 crores forcing
him to sell his residential house. That Respondent himself suffers from
heart disease. Mr. Nair accordingly prays for release of all benefits of the
Respondent by dismissing the Petition.
11)
Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now falls for
my consideration.
12) While working as A-Grade Clerk with the Water Supply
Department of Thane Municipal Corporation, Respondent was subjected
to disciplinary inquiry on allegations of misappropriation of municipal
funds. Before the issuance of the charge-sheet, the Municipal
Commissioner placed the Respondent under suspension by order dated
29 March 2005 upon discovering that the Respondent had failed to
deposit an amount of Rs. 1,46,533/- collected from consumers towards
water bills into the account of the Municipal Corporation during the
period from 1 April 2004 to 15 July 2004. Thereafter, on 21 February
2005, the Respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and sought
further time to deposit the remaining amount. Thus, it became clear that
PAGE NO. 7 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
Respondent had no dispute about non-deposit of amount of
Rs.1,46,533/- and he was willing to deposit the same with the Municipal
Corporation. Once Respondent’s misconduct came into light, he was
placed under suspension on 29 March 2005. By the time, chargesheet
was issued to him on 15 July 2006, he made further deposits of
Rs.50,566/- on 7 April 2005 and Rs.55,967/- on 16 April 2005. After
deposit of the entire amount of Rs.1,46,533/-, Respondent submitted his
representation and admitted the allegation of failure to deposit the
collected amounts from the consumers in the municipal accounts. In the
meantime, it appears that the Auditor examined the reports and
submitted audit report dated 13 September 2005 stating that the total
amount misappropriated by Respondent was actually Rs.2,77,116/-. It
appears that the Respondent thereafter remitted further amounts of
Rs.95,000/- on 6 December 2005 and Rs.35,583/- on 8 December 2005.
13) The Municipal Corporation thereafter issued memorandum
of chargesheet under Rule 8 of the MCS Rules on 15 July 2006 to the
Respondent alleging six charges as enumerated above. The charges were
essentially in respect of the initially discovered misappropriated amount
of Rs.1,46,533/- and final misappropriated amount of Rs.2,77,116/-.
Also, the allegations were levelled about the manner in which
Respondent kept the receipt books blank. After receipt of the
chargesheet dated 15 July 2006, Respondent submitted reply dated 17
July 2006. In his reply, Respondent admitted that he committed mistakes
as alleged in the chargesheet and attempting to justify the same by
citing his family problems. The relevant portion of Respondent’s reply
dated 17 July 2006 reads thus:
PAGE NO. 8 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
,
महोदय आपणदिदलेल्या ज्ञापनमध्येउल्लेखकेलेल्यामाझ्याचुका
.
हयासर्व माझ्याकौटुंदिकपदिदितीमुळे माझ्याकडुनझालेल्या
आहेतहयासर्व चुकामीजादिणर्वपुर्वककेलेल्यानाहीतत्या
माझ्याकडुनअनदि'ज्ञपणेघडलेल्याआहेतहाएकप् काेमाझ्या
.
आयुष्याचाअपघातआहेअसेमलार्वाटतआहे
(emphasis and underlining added)
14) Thus, the Respondent emphatically admitted that he
committed the ‘mistakes indicated in the chargesheet’. He also prayed
for pardon and gave undertaking not to commit the mistake again. The
relevant portion of the reply containing request for pardon, as well as
undertaking reads thus:
महोदय , ह्यासर्व ांीचीमीआपप्पाकडुन संपूर्ण तःमाफी मागत
आहेर्वआपणमला माफकराल . मीआपणासअशी हमी देतोकी
माझ्याहातुनअशाकोणत्याहीचुकाअ र्वागै र्वतणुकीचेकाम
'दिर्वष्यातघडणा
नाहीअसेमीआपणांसदिर्वनंतीपूर्वकदिलहुनदेत
आहे .
,
महोदय मीगेली२२र्वर्षे4 ठाणेपादिलकेतकेलेल्यासेर्वेचादिर्वचा
करुनआपणमलायासंपूण ाीतमलार्वमाझ्या . कुटूं ाला माफी
दयालअशीमीआपणांसदिर्वनंतीक ीतआहेमीमाझेकायालयीन
कामअत्यंतकत व्यादक्षर्वतत्पतेनेकेनअशी लेखीहमी देतआहे
मीकेलेल्याखुलाशाचाआपणसहानु'ूदितपुर्व कदिर्वचा करुनमला
प तकामार्व पुनादिपतकालअशीमीर्वमाझेकुटूंाचेर्वतीने
आपणांसनम् दिर्वनंतीकीतआहे .
(emphasis and underlining added)
15) The Industrial Court has considered the reply submitted by
the Respondent to the chargesheet and took up for consideration as to
whether the statements made in the reply could be treated as confession
of guilt. The Industrial Court has arrived at the conclusion that it was
impermissible to issue final notice for punishment merely on the basis of
PAGE NO. 9 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
reply dated 17 July 2006. It is held that guilt-plea of the Respondent was
required to be recorded in the inquiry which is not done in the present
case.
16) In my view, the Industrial Court has grossly erred in holding
that reply given by the Respondent on 17 July 2006 is not admission of
charges and that it was necessary to conduct inquiry for imposition of
even a minor penalty. Inquiry becomes necessary only to establish
charge when the delinquent employee disputes the same. The very
purpose of seeking reply of the delinquent employee to the chargesheet
is to examine whether it is necessary to conduct the inquiry. In a case
where the charge is admitted, there is no necessity of holding any
inquiry.
17) The inquiry in a chargesheet is conducted by examination of
witnesses and by production of evidence with a view to afford an
opportunity to the delinquent employee to deal with the evidence on the
basis of which the charges are sought to be established. However, when
delinquent employee admits the charge in reply to the chargesheet,
there is no necessity of holding any inquiry.
18) The Industrial Court has grossly erred in holding that the
‘plea’ needs to be recorded in the inquiry to be initiated post issuance of
chargesheet. The Industrial Court appears to have dealt with the case as
if it is a criminal prosecution. Unlike criminal prosecution, where plea of
the accused is required to be recorded by the Court in the trial, in
disciplinary proceedings, it is not mandatory to hold inquiry when the
charge is admitted. In disciplinarity proceedings, there are two stages
PAGE NO. 10 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
first stage
where plea of the delinquent employee is sought. The is at the
time of service of chargesheet. If upon receipt of the chargesheet the
delinquent employee admits the charge, holding of inquiry gets
dispensed with. As observed above, the very purpose of service of
chargesheet and seeking a reply thereon is to verify whether it is
necessary to hold the inquiry. It is impermissible to directly appoint an
inquiry officer with service of chargesheet under the MCS Rules. The
stage of seeking reply from the delinquent employee is important and
vital. In a given case, the disciplinary authority may get convinced with
the reply/explanation offered by the employee and may decide, to drop
the proceedings. Conversely, the employee may admit the charge
rendering holding of inquiry unnecessary. The second stage is where the
inquiry officer is appointed and the inquiry formally commences, at
which stage the inquiry officer records the plea of the employee. At this
stage also the employee can admit the charge rendering holding of
further inquiry unnecessary and the inquiry officer can abandon the
inquiry and submit a report to the disciplinary authority that the charge
is admitted. It is not mandatory that in every case, the proceedings must
be taken to the second stage. Where the charge is admitted at the first
stage, the disciplinary authority can straightaway proceed to punish the
employee.
19)
It must also be borne in mind that admission of charge
before the disciplinary authority may in fact assume higher weightage
than admission before the inquiry officer, as the disciplinary authority
has the power to punish the employee as opposed to the inquiry officer
who can merely make his recommendations, which are not binding on
PAGE NO. 11 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
the disciplinary authority. Therefore admission of charges before the
disciplinary authority cannot be discarded by holding that the plea of
admission of charges must be formally recorded by the inquiry officer.
20)
In the present case, the Respondent has emphatically
admitted the allegations levelled against him in the chargesheet. In
1
ADM (City) v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi , the Apex Court has dealt with
somewhat similar case of temporary misappropriation by the employee.
It is held by the Apex Court as under:
2. By consent of learned advocates of parties the appeal was finally
heard and is being disposed of by this judgment. Respondent 1 was an
employee of the appellant. He was alleged to have misappropriated
an amount of Rs 21,094.80. The said misconduct was detected on
8-12-1984. The amount was collected by him partly in March 1984
and partly in August 1984. The said amount was payable to Class
III and Class IV employees of the appellant on account of bonus
and other allowances after deduction for provident fund. This
amount was required to be deposited in the Post Office Account of
employees individually by Respondent 1 along with his associate
and for that purpose he had taken this amount from the office of
appellant. Instead of depositing the said amount it was kept by
Respondent 1 and on detection the amount was tendered only on
14-12-1984. Thus there was temporary misappropriation of this
amount for a period of eight months and less. Respondent 1 and
his associate have admitted this fact in writing and deposited the
amount on 15-12-1984. After a departmental enquiry Respondent 1
was dismissed from service on 29-11-1985. Respondent 1's statutory
appeal before the appellate authority failed. He thereafter filed writ
petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. His writ petition
came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the
authorities had not given adequate opportunity to Respondent 1 to
defend as he was not permitted to examine witnesses nor was he
supplied documents asked for by him. Accordingly the dismissal order
was quashed and set aside. Appellant was directed to reinstate
Respondent 1 with full back wages. It is this order of the High Court
which is brought in challenge by the appellant.
xxx
1
(1996)2 SCC 12
PAGE NO. 12 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
4. Having considered the rival contentions and also having gone
through the written submissions filed on behalf of Respondent 1 we
find that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. So far as
non-supply of Enquiry Officer's report is concerned it has to be kept in
view that no such contention was raised in the writ petition before the
High Court. The High Court has noted this aspect. Nothing could be
pointed out to us by learned counsel for the respondents to controvert
this observation of the High Court. Whether the pleadings in the writ
petition should be treated as pleadings in a suit or not is not relevant
for deciding this question. Reliance placed in the written submission
on R. v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [(1976) 3 All ER 452 :
(1976) 1 WLR 1052] also is of no avail to Respondent 1. The said
decision cannot support the contention canvassed on behalf of
Respondent 1 that even if there is no grievance made in the writ
petition the High Court is bound to consider the said grievance. So far
as the grievance about the non-examination of witnesses and non-
supply of documents is concerned, in our view, the High Court has
erred in ignoring the salient features of the case, namely, that
Respondent 1 himself by his statement dated 14-12-1984 admitted
to have received an amount of Rs 21,000 and odd and which could
not be deposited by him along with his associate on account of
their carelessness and fault. It is difficult to appreciate how the said
statement could be said to have been brought about by any coercion as
tried to be submitted on behalf of Respondent 1. But even apart from
that the order sheet of the Enquiry Officer clearly shows that
Respondent 1 Prabhakar as well as Sajan Kumar had submitted that
they have not to give any documentary or oral evidence and that is how
their evidence was closed. Under these circumstances the subsequent
request by Respondent 1 to examine four more witnesses was rightly
considered by the Enquiry Officer to be an afterthought and
accordingly such request was rightly rejected. In fact on account of the
clear admission contained in writing given by Respondent 1 on 14-12-
1984 the charge against him stood proved on admission and the only
question that remained to be considered was about the nature of
punishment to be imposed on him. When Respondent 1 was guilty of
misappropriation of such a large amount of Rs 21,000 and odd for
couple of months it could not be said that the punishment of dismissal
as imposed on him was in any way uncalled for or was grossly
disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct proved against
Respondent 1. For all these reasons the order of the High Court cannot
be sustained and is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The writ petition
filed in the High Court will stand dismissed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
(emphasis and underlining added)
PAGE NO. 13 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
21) Employees State
The Division Bench of this Court in
Insurance Corporation, New Delhi and another Versus. A.V. Tungare
2
and others has discussed the law on the subject of admission made
during the course of domestic inquiry and has held as under:
17 . Having considered the rival submissions of the parties we may note
that the undisputed facts are that a charge-sheet dated 23-5-1990
containing 11 charges was issued to the 1st respondent. An Inquiry
Officer was duly appointed to conduct a departmental enquiry. All the
documents in support of the charges were duly furnished to the 1st
respondent. An opportunity was given to the 1st respondent to
represent his case before the Inquiry Officer. The 1st respondent also
appointed Shri J.D. Barahate as his defence Assistant. In the inquiry
proceedings held on 3-3-1992 the 1st respondent submitted an
unconditional acceptance of all the charges and pleaded for a lenient
view to be taken in the matter against him. Furthermore, the 1st
respondent also submitted a letter dated 3-2-1992 stating that he has
voluntarily and unconditionally pleaded guilty to all the charges
levelled against him and reiterated that he be pardoned for the same.
The 1st respondent further submitted a letter to the Director General
dated 29-5-1992 in which the 1st respondent thanked the Director
General for relieving him of the botheration of the departmental
inquiry and stated that he has no comments to offer in respect of the
inquiry report and made a request to take a lenient view in view of the
reasons as stated by him in the said letter. These circumstances clearly
go to show that admissions of the charges were voluntary and not due
to any undue influence on the part of the defence Assistant and the
Inquiry Officer. However, contrary to the said position in the
Memorandum of Appeal filed against the order of dismissal the 1st
respondent for the first time took a stand that he had admitted to the
charges as he was told to do so by his defence Assistant and the Inquiry
Officer. It is noteworthy that the 1st respondent at no point of time
either in the enquiry proceedings or before filing of the appeal made
any grievance about the alleged collusive conduct of the defence
assistant and the inquiry officer to induce him to admit the charges. No
grievance of any duress, force or presence was ever made. In fact, the
1st respondent's letters dated 3-2-1992 and 29-5-1992 completely
nullify such a plea as taken by the 1st respondent before the Appellate
Authority. We do not think it was permissible in law for the 1st
respondent to adopt such a contrary position to retract from the
admissions as made before the Inquiry Officer and the same was a clear
afterthought. Admissions made before the Inquiry Officer would not
lose their efficacy and relevance for the purpose of the wheels of the
2
2014 (5) Mh.L.J. 219
PAGE NO. 14 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
inquiry set into motion unless there are acceptable reasons that the
same are not voluntary or are under force or duress.
In this context, to appreciate the consequence of admission of a fact
the general position in law can be seen by referring to the provisions of
section 58 of the Evidence Act. Section 58 deals with the facts which are
admitted and hence not required to be proved. It provides that no fact
need to be proved in any proceedings which the parties thereto or their
agents agree to admit at the hearing or which before the hearing, they
agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of
pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their
pleadings. The proviso to this section states that the Court may in its
discretion, require the facts to be admitted to be proved otherwise than
by such admissions.
The 1st respondent in writing had admitted to the charges and hence as
a legal requirement such admission becomes relevant. The charges
which are admitted by the 1st respondent were not required to be
proved and the inquiry can be said to be rightly closed. Pertinently the
1st respondent agreed to close the enquiry.
18. It is necessary to advert to the following judgments of the Supreme
Court:
The Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Additional District
Magistrate (city) Agra v. Prabhakar Chaturdevi (supra) dealt with a case
arising out of misappropriation of money by an employee who had
admitted the fact in writing. After a disciplinary inquiry, the employee
was dismissed from service. His statutory appeal also failed. In a Writ
petition filed by the employee before the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the
ground that the authorities had not given adequate opportunity to the
employee to defend as he was not permitted to examine witnesses nor
he was supplied the documents, the dismissal order was quashed and
set aside and the employee was directed to be reinstated with full back
wages. In a challenge to the said order of the Allahabad High Court
before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“4 …………………in our view, the High Court has erred in
ignoring the salient features of the case namely that Respondent
himself by his statement dated 14-12-1984 admitted to have
received an amount of Rs. 21,000/- and odd and which could not
be deposited by him along with his associate on account of their
carelessness and fault. It is difficult to appreciate how the said
statement could be said to have been brought about by any
coercion as tried to be submitted on behalf of the
respondent. But even apart from that the order sheet of the
Enquiry Officer clearly shows that Respondent Prabhakar as well
as Sajan Kumar had submitted that they have not to give any
documentary or oral evidence and that is how their evidence
was closed. Under these circumstances the subsequent request
PAGE NO. 15 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
by Respondent to examine four more witnesses was rightly
considered by the Enquiry Officer to be an afterthought and
accordingly such request was rightly rejected. In fact, on
account of the clear admission contained in writing given by
Respondent on 14-12-1984 the charge against him stood proved
on admission and the only question that remained to be
considered was about the nature of punishment to be imposed
on him.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In the case of Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of
Mysore , (1971) 1 SCC 1 the Supreme Court has held as under:
4. “The pleas of the petitioner are quite clear. In fact he
admitted all the relevant facts on which the decision could be
given against him and therefore it cannot be stated that the
enquiry was in breach of any principle of natural justice. At an
enquiry facts have to be proved and the person proceeded
against must have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses
and to give his own version or explanation about the evidence
on which he is charged and to lead his defence. In this case, the
facts were two-fold that he had stayed beyond the sanctioned
leave and that he had proceeded on a fast as a demonstration
against the action of the authorities and also for what he called
the upliftment of the country etc. These facts were undoubtedly
admitted by him. His explanation was also there and it had to be
taken into account. That explanation is obviously futile, because
persons in the police force must be clear about extension of
leave before they absent themselves from duty. Indeed this is
true of everyone of the services, unless of course there are
circumstances in which a person is unable to rejoin service, as
for example when he is desperately ill or is otherwise reasonably
prevented from attending to his duties. This is not the case here.
The petitioner took upon himself the decision as to whether
leave could be extended or not and acted upon it. He did go on a
fast. His later explanation was that he went on a fast for quite a
different reason. The enquiry officer had to go by the reasons
given by him. On the whole therefore the admission was one of
guilty insofar as the facts on which the enquiry was held and the
learned Single Judge in the High Court was, in our opinion right
in so holding.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shyam Lal (supra) their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under:
PAGE NO. 16 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
“7. We find that the Tribunal's conclusions are prima facie not correct.
The statement made by the passenger who had paid excess money to
the checking officer is not in the nature of hearsay
evidence. Additionally, the effect of the admission regarding guilt as
contained in the letters dated 13-1-1989 and 24-2-1989 have not been
considered in the proper perspective. It is a fairly settled position in law
that admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making
the admission. It is however, open to the person making the admission
to show why the admission is not to be acted upon.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing
Director Goparaju Sri Prabhakar Haribabu
v. (supra) dealt with an issue
arising out of disciplinary proceedings. A charge-sheet was issued to
the delinquent employee, for absence without leave for a period of 53
days, the employee had admitted the charges and promised to be
regular. In the disciplinary proceedings the employee had accepted his
guilt whereupon the inquiry proceedings were closed recording the
admission of the charges as made by the employee. The disciplinary
authority upon consideration of the inquiry report held the employee
guilty of all the charges and ordered removal from service. In this
context, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“16. He in his explanation in answer to the charge-sheet pleaded guilty
admitting the charges. In terms of section 58 of the Evidence Act,
charges having been admitted were not required to be proved. It was on
that premise that the enquiry proceedings was closed. Before the
enquiry officer, he did not submit the explanation of his mother being
ill. He despite opportunities granted to report to duty, did not do it. He
failed to explain even his prior conduct.”
18. It was observed that judicial admissions can be made the foundation
of the rights of the parties.
19. A subsequent explanation before another authority, which had not
been pleaded in the departmental proceedings, cannot by itself be a
ground to hold that the principles of natural justice had not been
complied with in the disciplinary proceedings,
(emphasis supplied)
22. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manoj H.
Mishra v. Union of India (supra) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in
para 35 have observed as under:
“35. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
have not committed any error in rejecting the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant. We are not inclined to examine the
issue that the actions of the appellant would not constitute a
misconduct under the Rules. In view of the admissions made by the
PAGE NO. 17 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
appellant, no evidence was adduced before the enquiry officer by either
of the parties. Once the enquiry officer had declined to accept the
conditional admissions made by the appellant, it was open to him to
deny the charges. But he chose to make an unequivocal admission
instead of reiterating his earlier denial as recorded in preliminary
hearing held on 26-12-1994. The appellant cannot now be permitted to
resile from the admission made before the enquiry officer. The plea to
reopen the enquiry has been rejected by the appellate as well as the
revisional authority.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is also justified in
relying on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court Mr.
Justice R.M. Lodha, (as His Lordship then was) in case of Canara
Bank v. H.T. Koli. (supra). Dealing with a case arising out of admission
of the guilt in paras 6, 7 and 8 the following observations were made:
“6. Once the defence of the employee that his statement made on May
20, 1982 and May 21, 1982 was recorded under duress or force or
pressure is not accepted, the admission of the employee in unequivocal
term proves his misconduct. I have already observed above that the
facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the conclusion that
the statement made by the employee on May 20, 1982 and May 21, 1982
was not voluntary or was recorded under pressure or force and
therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of the
employee's admission is that the charge against him is proved.
7. Thus, the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that the charge
against the employee is not proved cannot be sustained.
8. Looking to the serious and grave nature of misconduct of fraud and
forgery committed by the employee defrauding the employer-bank and
causing substantial monetary loss, it cannot be said that the
punishment of dismissal inflicted by the employer-bank was unjustified
or shockingly disproportionate to the charge which has been held
proved.”
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also justified in relying upon a
similar view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court by Dr.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as His Lordship then was) in the
case Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha Utpadak Sangh v. Shivaji Shankar
Pharakate (supra) wherein the delinquent employee had admitted the
charges where the Industrial Court despite admission of the charges
had ordered reinstatement, it was observed in paras 9 and 10 as under:
“9. The record of the enquiry discloses that the workmen were
permitted to be defended by an Advocate. After the enquiry had
commenced upon the issuance of a charge-sheet, the evidence of the
managements’ witness, the Managing Director of the petitioner, was
recorded on 11th June, 1990. On 27th February, 1991 proceedings took
PAGE NO. 18 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
place in the course of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer noted that the
workmen had submitted a representation accepting the allegation of
misconduct contained in the charge-sheet dated 8th August, 1989. The
Enquiry Officer posed several questions to the workmen to verify as to
whether the representations were addressed by the workmen; whether
they were voluntary or otherwise and whether the allegations of
misconduct were accepted to the workmen. To this the answer was in
the affirmative. In the letter addressed by the First respondent to the
Enquiry Officer, the incident which took place on 1st April, 1989 was
not denied. There was an acceptance of the fact that the workmen were
apprehended when they had filled a privately owned tanker on the
night of the date of the incident but it was stated that this was all done
at the behest of a superior. The workmen prayed that they may be
reinstated in service.”
10. Now there can be no dispute about the fundamental principle of law
that an admission of misconduct, in order to be acceptable as a ground
for holding that the charge is proved, must not be qualified or
conditional. The record of the enquiry dated 27th February, 1991 would
in fact reveal that the incident which took place on 1st April, 1989 was
not disputed. The presence of the workmen at 1.30 a.m. on 1st April,
1989, the presence of a private tanker which was brought into the
premises of the chilling plant and the role of the workmen in actually
assisting and facilitating the filling up of 10, 000 litres of milk in the
tanker is not in dispute. It must be noted that it was not the defence of
the workmen that the incident did not take place or that they were
falsely implicated. The defence of the workmen at all material times
was that they had acted thus in compliance with the direction of the
superior. In these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer made due
enquiries with the workmen on whether the statement was voluntarily
furnished and it was only upon his satisfaction that this was so that the
enquiry was closed. The Labour Court noted that in the enquiry
proceedings both the complainant workmen as well as their Advocate
put down their signatures. Once this was the case, the Labour Court
was justified in coming to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct
stood proved.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. Having considered the aforesaid settled position in law that once an
employee has admitted to the charges and that there is no cogent
material to show that the admission of the charges was recorded under
duress or force or pressure and that the admission was unconditional
and in unequivocal terms, no fault can be found in the Inquiry Officer
closing the inquiry proceedings. In the present case the disciplinary
authority on the basis of the inquiry report which recorded the
admission of the 1st respondent held that the charges have been
proved. In our view, there was nothing unlawful on the part of the
disciplinary authority proceeding on such admission made by the 1st
PAGE NO. 19 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
respondent to pass the order of dismissal considering the seriousness of
the charges.
22)
Thus, in ESIC Versus. A.V. Tungare, the Division Bench of
this Court after surveying various judgments of the Apex Court and of
this Court on the subject has held once there is admission of charges, it
is not necessary to hold enquiry to establish the same. The judgment of
Division Bench in ESIC Versus. A.V. Tungare , has been followed by this
Court in Shri. Vishwanath Bhivaji Kudale Versus. The Chariman,
3
Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors. .
23) In my view, therefore the Industrial Court has grossly erred
in setting aside the show cause notice dated 4 February 2009. The
Respondent has clearly admitted all the allegations in the chargesheet.
He admitted temporary misappropriation in his responses dated 4
February 2005 and 16 April 2005 which pre-dated chargesheet dated 15
July 2006. After being caught, he deposited initial discovered amount of
Rs.1,46,533/- between February and April 2005. Later, it was discovered
that the amount of misappropriation was actually Rs.2,77,116/-. After
being caught about the additional misappropriated amount, the
Respondent deposited the balance misappropriated amount on 6
December 2005 and 8 December 2005. Thus, what is stated by the
Respondent on 17 July 2006 is not a statement made in a spur of the
moment or confession given under duress or coercion. He was
consistently admitting his mistakes right since 4 February 2005. He
admitted his mistakes both expressly in writing and through his conduct
by depositing the misappropriated amounts. Most importantly, he
3
WP-2711 of 2006 decided on 17 January 2025.
PAGE NO. 20 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
admitted the allegations even after knowing that he was being subjected
to disciplinary proceedings for being punished. He did so not out of
charity but with the objective of ensuring his retention in service. He
succeeded in his objective and ensured that lenient punishment of only
reversion was proposed. He, however, took a volte face and after the
indulgent act shown by the Municipal Corporation, approached the
Industrial Court. The case therefore, involves an admission of
misconduct, which did not warrant the holding of a formal enquiry to
establish the temporary misappropriation by leading evidence.
24)
In fact, Petitioner-Municipal Corporation appears to be
extremely lenient in dealing with the Respondent. Despite the charge of
misappropriation being proved, the Municipal Corporation proposed
imposition of penalty of reversion only on the Respondent.
Misappropriation is a serious misconduct warranting punishment of
removal/dismissal from service. Ordinarily, Municipal Corporation ought
to have been strict in enforcing discipline amongst its employees. It
ought to have removed/dismissed the Respondent from service after it
was established that he committed misconduct of misappropriation.
However, by admitting the charges, repaying the misappropriated
amount, and repeatedly tendering apologies, the Respondent ensured
his retention in service, as only a show-cause notice proposing the minor
penalty of reversion was issued against him. However, after receiving
show cause notice dated 4 February 2009, he turned around and
challenged the same before the Industrial Court by filing Complaint
(ULP) No. 44 of 2009. The Industrial Court grossly erred in entertaining
the complaint against a mere show cause notice. A disciplinary Authority
PAGE NO. 21 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
is empowered in law to punish the delinquent employee and it is not
open for an industrial adjudicator to interdict the enquiry by
entertaining a challenge to a mere show cause notice.
25) This Court has repeatedly deprecated the exercise of
jurisdiction by the industrial adjudicators against mere show cause
notices issued before imposing punishment orders. Mere conferring of
jurisdiction to prevent unfair labour practice does not mean that the
Industrial Court should routinely interfere in pending disciplinary
proceedings. The adjudication of allegation of unfair labour practice in a
disciplinary proceeding must ordinarily happen after imposition of
penalty and after the departmental remedies are exhausted. The High
Courts, conferred with plenary adjudication under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, exercise restraint and caution in not interdicting
the pending disciplinary proceedings. Even the Administrative Tribunals
cannot ordinarily entertain challenges to pending disciplinary
proceedings. The industrial adjudicators also need to exercise restraint
and permit the disciplinary proceedings to be taken to their logical end.
If a complaint of unfair labour practice is entertained and decided at the
stage of issuance of show cause notice for punishment, the adjudication
about the conduct of the delinquent employee takes place at the hands
of the Industrial Court even before the disciplinary authority has an
opportunity to take a decision in the proceedings. This is not the warrant
for exercise of jurisdiction by the industrial adjudicators. Under the guise
of exercising preventive jurisdiction, they cannot usurp the power of the
disciplinary authority and proceed to decide whether the employee is
guilty of charge or not and whether imposition of any punishment is
PAGE NO. 22 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
warranted or not even before the disciplinary authority gets an
opportunity to take a decision in the proceedings.
26) This Court is conscious of the fact that one of the objectives
behind enacting the MRTU & PULP Act is to confer preventive
jurisdiction on Labour and Industrial Courts. Section 30 of the Act
confers ‘cease and desist’ jurisdiction. Under Section 30 of the Act, both
the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to declare when an
unfair labour practice is occurring and issue mandatory cease-and-desist
orders to halt the violation. In case of private employments where the
likelihood of victimization is higher such preventive jurisdiction can be
exercised by halting the unfair labour practice which is in the process of
occurrence. However, this jurisdiction cannot be overstretched to mean
that the Labour or Industrial Courts can prevent the disciplinary
authorities of Government or semi-government servants from exercising
their inherent powers of enforcing discipline and punishing the errant
employee. Industrial adjudicators ordinarily should not jump in and
usurp the authority of the employer and pre-decide the fate of
disciplinary proceedings.
27) If industrial adjudicators routinely entertain complaints
against mere show cause notices proposing punishments, the State
Instrumentalities would never be able to punish the delinquent
employees even after the charge is held to be proved. There appears to
be a consistent practice adopted by industrial adjudicators in
entertaining complaints against mere show cause notices and granting
stay on further action in pursuance of such notices. This results in a
PAGE NO. 23 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
situation where employee continues in service and retires on
superannuation due to long pendency of proceedings. Exercise of
jurisdiction by industrial adjudicators against mere show cause notices
tramples upon the power of the disciplinary authority to enforce
discipline in its organisation. It is not that after imposition of penalty,
the delinquent employee is without any remedy. He can challenge the
punishment order and if he succeeds, he can be reinstated with or
without backwages. In a case where charge is proved and employer wants
to punish the delinquent employee, the Industrial Tribunal must stay its
hands by not entertaining such complaints at interlocutory stage against
mere show cause notices for imposition of punishment.
4
28)
In Dagadu Vasant Mudgal Vs. MSRTC , this Court has
held thus:
8 As observed above, the unique situation is created in the present case
on account of entertainment of the Complaint by the Labour Court
relating to the prayer for injuncting Respondent-employer from
dismissing Petitioner- employee. In my view, once the enquiry is held,
charge is proved and show- cause notice is issued, the Respondent-
employer must be permitted to take the disciplinary proceedings to its
logical end by passing appropriate final order. By show cause notice
dated 23 April 2011, Petitioner-employee was merely directed to make
a representation against the proposed punishment. There is no reason
for inferring that Respondent-employer would impose only the
punishment suggested in the show cause notice. If the Petitioner-
employee was to file Reply to the
show-cause notice, final decision would have been taken by the
Disciplinary Authority and in the event of such final decision is adverse
to Petitioner-employee, cause of action would have arisen for him to
challenge the said punishment order by filing the substantive
Complaint before the Labour Court. However, the action of the
Petitioner-employee in rushing to the Labour Court at the interlocutory
stage of the disciplinary proceedings and entertainment of such half-
4
Writ Petition No. 12210 of 2024 decided on 3 September 2024
PAGE NO. 24 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
baked Complaint by the Labour Court has given rise to unique problem
in the present case.
9 The unique problem which prevails today in the case is that though
the disciplinary proceedings are yet to be complete, the Labour Court
and the Industrial Court have not only upheld the enquiry, findings of
Enquiry Officer but also the proposed punishment. Thus even before
completion of the enquiry and passing of any final order, the Labour
Court's jurisdiction was invoked for seeking a certificate of fairness in
the enquiry and absence of perversity in the findings of the Enquiry
Officer. Ordinarily the said preliminary issues can be gone into only in a
substantive Complaint challenging the final order of punishment. To
put a premium on the irregularities, the Labour Court has decided the
issue of proportionality in absence of any punishment being imposed
on the Petitioner-employee. Deciding the issue of proportionality in
respect of non-existent penalty is grossly inappropriate. After receiving
representation from Petitioner-employee to the show-cause notice, it is
for the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate decision in the case.
It is when final penalty order is issued, the issue of proportionality of
such penalty can be gone into.
10 This Court is of the view that the Respondent-employer has inherent
right of punishing the Petitioner-employee against whom charge in the
disciplinary enquiry is held to be proved. An industrial adjudicator
cannot intervene the proceedings and prevent the Respondent-
employer from taking the disciplinary proceedings to their logical end.
In my view therefore, Respondent-employer must be permitted to pass
a final order in pursuance of show-cause notice dated 23 April 2011.
However, on account of adjudication of issues relating to fairness of
enquiry and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it becomes
questionable as to whether Petitioner-employee can be permitted to
raise the very same issue once again in the event any adverse penalty is
imposed on him in pursuance of the show cause notice. Such a course
of action would obviously tantamount adjudication of same issue twice.
This is the reason why the Labour Court ought to have avoided
entertainment of the Complaint during pendency of disciplinary
proceedings and ought to have allowed the Respondent-employer to
pass a final order in pursuance of the show cause notice.
29)
The outcome of Industrial Tribunal’s erroneous exercise of
jurisdiction in the present case has rewarded the Respondent, who is
found to be guilty of serious charge of misappropriation of municipal
funds. He went on a rampage and misappropriated huge amount of
PAGE NO. 25 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
Rs.2,77,116/- back in the year 2004. His misappropriation is during the
short period from 1 April 2004 to 15 July 2004. In about 3 months, he
misappropriated massive amount of Rs.2,77,116/-. It is only after he was
caught, he sheepishly refunded the misappropriated amount out of fear
of losing his job. He admitted his misconduct and prayed for pardon. The
Municipal Corporation actually pardoned him by proposing to impose a
lenient punishment of only reversion when infact he deserved a strict
punishment of removal/dismissal from service. An employee committing
misconduct of misappropriation of municipal funds cannot be retained
in service. Imposition of punishment of mere reversion is like rewarding
an employee who misappropriates public funds for his own gain.
30)
In the present case, the Respondent sought to persuade the
Municipal Corporation to let him off the hook by refunding the
misappropriated amounts, by admitting the charges, and by seeking
pardon, thereby securing the imposition of the relatively minor
punishment of reversion. After ensuring that the Municipal Corporation
would not remove him from service, he turned around and challenged
even show cause notice for reversion and ensured that he continued to
hold the post of A-Grade Clerk till his retirement on 31 July 2021. This is
what happened on account of erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the
Industrial Tribunal. On account of entertainment of baseless complaint
filed by the Respondent at an interlocutory stage of disciplinary enquiry,
the Tribunal aided the delinquent Respondent to retire on the post of A-
Grade Clerk by enjoying the said post for the next 11 long years.
PAGE NO. 26 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
31)
Be that as it may, mere retirement of Respondent from
service on 31 July 2021 cannot be a reason for retaining erroneous order
passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Respondent has committed serious
misconduct of misappropriation of public money. He needs to be visited
atleast with the punishment, which was proposed by the Municipal
Commissioner in the show cause notice dated 4 February 2009.
Imposition of punishment of reversion would still entitle the
Respondent to pension and other retirement benefits for the
Respondent. In my view therefore the penalty proposed vide show cause
notice dated 4 February 2009 must be imposed on the Respondent in the
facts and circumstances of the present case where he has admitted
misconduct of misappropriation of amount of Rs.2,77,116/-.
32)
On account of grant of stay by the Industrial Tribunal during
pendency of the complaint, Respondent continued working on the post
of A-Grade Clerk till his retirement on 31 July 2021. He has already
drawn salary and allowances of the post of A-Grade Clerk till his
retirement. Imposition of punishment of reversion on him at this stage
would entail reduction of his salary during the period of his reversion
and also recovery of excess wages. However, since the Respondent has
already shouldered duties and responsibilities of the post of A-Grade
Clerk ( albeit erroneously ), this Court is not directing recovery of amount
of excess wages drawn by the Respondent. However, his pay needs to be
notionally re-fixed, after considering the punishment imposed on him,
so that he does not draw higher amount of pension and other retirement
benefits.
PAGE NO. 27 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
33)
The show cause notice dated 4 February 2009 also did not
specify the period during which punishment of reversion was to operate.
Under Rule 5(1)(V) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, the disciplinary authority needs to specify the period
during which the delinquent employee is to be brought down from lower
pay scale/pay grade with further directions as to whether the
punishment would have cumulative effect or not. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate to give
cumulative effect to the punishment of reversion. Ordinarily, it is the
disciplinary authority alone who can decide the exact punishment to be
imposed. However, in the present case, the Respondent has already
retired from service on 31 July 2021. It would therefore be apt to give a
full stop to the entire episode by this Court specifying the period during
which the punishment of reversion would operate. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case and considering the nature of charges
established against the Respondent, it would be appropriate to direct
imposition of punishment of reversion to the post of Clerk on the
Respondent for a period of 3 years, with cumulative effect. During this
period of 3 years, Respondent would not draw increments, and the
punishment would have the effect of postponement of his increments.
However, at the end of period of 3 years, he would regain his promotion
to the post of A-Grade Clerk.
34)
I am not impressed by the repeated appeals made by the
learned counsel for Respondent to dispose of the petition as infructuous
on account of retirement of Respondent and on account of the alleged
financial difficulties faced by him. It appears that Respondent is habitual
PAGE NO. 28 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
in raising defenses of financial difficulties. Even while admitting the
allegations vide reply dated 17 July 2006, he put forth the pretext of
disability of his son. Now he has raised pretext of his own ailments as
well as the ailment of his wife. Financial difficulties by an employee
cannot be a ground for pardoning serious misconduct of
misappropriation. Respondent has already enjoyed benefits of services
on account of erroneous stay granted by the Industrial Tribunal. As
observed above, Respondent deserves imposition of punishment of
removal /dismissal. However, even lenient punishment of reversion was
not permitted to be imposed by him by securing stay from the Industrial
Tribunal. Imposition of punishment of reversion at this stage does not
render the Respondent pensionless. There may be slight reduction in the
amount of his pension which in my view is clearly justified considering
serious misconduct committed by him. The present case would stand as
an example for those who indulge in misconduct and attempt to get
away with the same by misusing legal process. In my view therefore
though the Respondent has retired from service, imposition of
punishment on him is still warranted to enforce discipline in the
workforce of the Municipal Corporation.
35) In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the
following order:
i. Judgment and Order dated 18 April 2011 passed by the
Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 44 of 2009 is set
aside.
PAGE NO. 29 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Neeta Sawant WP-5672 of 2011
ii.
Petitioner-Municipal Corporation shall impose
punishment of reversion from the post of A-Grade Clerk to
the post of Clerk on the Respondent for a period of 3 years
with cumulative effect. The punishment shall be imposed
from the date of show cause notice i.e. w.e.f. 4 February
2009.
iii. The pay of the Respondent shall be notionally refixed by
considering the punishment imposed on him only for the
purpose of determining his pension and other pensionary
benefits.
iv. Petitioner-Municipal Corporation shall not recover any
amount from Respondent towards salary and pension
already paid to him. However, from January 2027 onwards,
the Respondent shall receive reduced amount of pension
by taking into consideration the notional pay-fixation done
as a result of punishment of reversion.
v. Petitioner-Municipal Corporation shall release the with-
held gratuity of Respondent after recalculating the same
within 6 weeks.
36) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed .
Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to cost. With disposal
of the Writ Petition nothing would survive in the Interim Application,
and the same is disposed of.
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Digitally signed by
NEETA SHAILESH
SAWANT
Date: 2026.11.02
20:52:35 +0530
[SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]
PAGE NO. 30 of 30
2 November 2026
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 21:12:30
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)