Bombay HC Orders 3-Year Reversion For Retired Thane Municipal Clerk Who Admitted ₹2.77-Lakh Misappropriation, Reducing Pension

The Respondent, an A-Grade Clerk in the Thane Municipal Corporation’s Water Supply Department, was charged with failing to deposit collections and misappropriating municipal funds totalling Rs. 2,77,116.

He repaid the amounts, admitted the mistakes alleged in the chargesheet, and sought pardon.

The Corporation proposed reversion to the post of Clerk.

The Respondent challenged the show-cause notice before the Industrial Court, which set it aside, holding that his admission was insufficient without a formal recording of his plea in an inquiry.

The Corporation’s writ petition challenged that decision.

During its pendency, the Respondent retired.

Under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, a formal inquiry is directed to establishing disputed charges; where the employee unequivocally admits the charges in response to the chargesheet, the disciplinary authority may proceed without an inquiry to prove them.

The Court relied on ADM (City) v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi, (1996) 2 SCC 12, and Employees State Insurance Corporation v. A.V. Tungare, 2014 (5) Mh.L.J. 219, among other authorities, for the effect of voluntary admissions in disciplinary proceedings.

Item 9 of Schedule IV and Section 30 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, empower industrial adjudicators to address unfair labour practices, but do not ordinarily warrant intervention in pending disciplinary proceedings at the show-cause stage.

Rule 5(1)(v) of the MCS Rules requires the period and effect of a reversion penalty to be specified.

The Respondent’s reply acknowledged the mistakes alleged in the chargesheet and sought pardon; his earlier repayments and written responses also supported the Court’s finding that the admission was consistent and voluntary, rather than coerced.

The Court therefore held that a formal inquiry was unnecessary and that the Industrial Court erred in requiring the plea to be recorded by an inquiry officer.

It further held that the Industrial Court should not have halted the disciplinary process by reviewing a proposed penalty before the disciplinary authority had completed its decision-making.

Retirement did not, in the Court’s view, justify preserving the Industrial Court’s erroneous order.

Because the Respondent had already served on the higher post, the Court imposed the proposed reversion for a defined period, ordered notional pay refixation for pensionary purposes, and barred recovery of salary and pension already paid.

It directed the Corporation to revert the Respondent from A-Grade Clerk to Clerk for three years with cumulative effect, effective from 4 February 2009.

His pay was to be notionally refixed for calculating pension and other retirement benefits; no recovery was permitted of salary or pension already paid, and the reduced pension was to apply from January 2027.

The Corporation was directed to recalculate and release the withheld gratuity within six weeks.

The interim application was disposed of, with no order as to costs.