Retired Thane Municipal Clerk Who Admitted Rs 2.77 Lakh Misappropriation To Face 3-Year Reversion And Lower Pension: Bombay HC

The Respondent, an A-Grade Clerk in the Thane Municipal Corporation’s Water Supply Department, was charged with failing to deposit amounts collected from consumers and misappropriating municipal funds. The amount ultimately identified was Rs. 2,77,116.

He repaid the amounts and, in his written reply to the chargesheet, acknowledged the mistakes, sought pardon and undertook not to repeat them.

The Corporation proposed reverting him to the post of Clerk. The Respondent challenged the show-cause notice before the Industrial Court, which found an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and set the notice aside.

The Corporation’s writ petition challenged that decision. While it was pending, the Respondent retired on 31 July 2021.

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

The Court relied on the principle reflected in Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that admitted facts ordinarily need not be proved, and on authorities including Additional District Magistrate (City), Agra v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi, (1996) 2 SCC 12, and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. A.V. Tungare, 2014 (5) Mh.L.J. 219, concerning the effect of admissions in disciplinary proceedings.

Under the MRTU & PULP Act, including Section 30, industrial adjudicators have preventive powers against unfair labour practices, but should ordinarily not intervene in pending disciplinary proceedings at the show-cause stage; the employee may challenge an adverse final order.

Rule 5(1)(v) of the MCS Rules requires a reversion penalty to specify its duration and whether it carries cumulative effect.

The Court held that the Respondent had consistently acknowledged the non-deposit and misappropriation, repaid the amounts after their discovery, and expressly accepted the mistakes in his chargesheet reply while seeking pardon.

It found no basis to treat those admissions as coerced or equivocal; therefore, a formal inquiry to prove the admitted charges was unnecessary.

The Industrial Court had accordingly erred both in rejecting the admissions and in setting aside a proposed penalty before the disciplinary authority had completed its process.

Although the Respondent had retired, the Court considered that fact insufficient to preserve the erroneous Industrial Court order or prevent imposition of the proposed reversion. It directed notional refixation for pension purposes, while protecting the Respondent from recovery of salary and pension already paid.

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

The Respondent’s pay was to be notionally refixed for pensionary benefits; no recovery was permitted for salary or pension already paid, but his pension was to be reduced from January 2027 on the basis of the refixation.

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

The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs, and the interim application was disposed of.