Trilok Sadashivrao Shende vs Bank Of Mah. By Its Regional ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5298 Bom

                                                 1               wp1346.96.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1346 OF 1996


            Mr. Trilok Sadashivrao Shende,
            aged about 44 years, R/o. Jatpura,
            Ward No.3, Panchsheel Square,
            Chandrapur......                                                PETITIONER

                                 ...VERSUS...

         Bank of Maharashtra,
         by its Disciplinary Authority & Regional
         Manager, Chandrapur Region, 
         Ghanshyam Bhavan, Mul Road,
         Chandrapur                ......                                   RESPONDENT
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri B.M.Khan, counsel for Petitioner.
 Shri Shantanu Ghate, counsel for Respondent 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE,
                                        Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

st DATE : 31 JULY, 2017 .

ORAL JUDGMENT (P.C.)

1] The challenge in this petition is to the order of

punishment dated 06.06.1994, imposing upon the petitioner

the punishment of stoppage of five increments which would

have the effect of postponing the future increments i.e. with

cumulative effect.

                                                   2             wp1346.96.odt

          2]               Two charges were levelled against the petitioner,

i.e. (i) that on 24.06.1992 at about 5 p.m., the petitioner

shouted at one another employee P.D.Muley, challenging his

authority to ask questions and threatening him by saying that

if he continues to talk, there shall be physical assault on him;

and (ii) on the same day i.e. 24.06.1992, the petitioner

slapped one another employee namely J.P.Deo, Clerk in the

Bank. The petitioner was charged for -

(1) Committing nuisance on the premises of the Bank - a "Minor misconduct" under clause 19.7(e) of Bipartite Settlement 1966.

(2) Failing to show proper consideration, courtesy or attention towards officers and other employees of the Bank, unseemly or unsatisfactory behaviour while on duty - a "Minor misconduct under clause 19.7 (j) of Bipartite Settlement 1966.

(3) riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the Bank - a "Gross misconduct" under clause 19.5(c) of Bipartite Settlement, 1966.

(4) Committing the acts of subversive and discipline and prejudicial to the interest of the Bank - a "gross misconduct" under clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement.

3] A detailed enquiry was conducted against him.

The Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner and another

employee P.D.Muley both were involved in the episode and

both have committed misconduct. In respect of another

3 wp1346.96.odt

charge, the petitioner is held guilty of involvement as a

person committing act subversive of discipline, which is

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.

4] Shri Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner

has urged that in respect of an incident of slapping, criminal

prosecution was instituted against the petitioner by the

concerned employee, which resulted in his acquittal. The

Bank, therefore, could not have conducted disciplinary

enquiry against him in respect of the same charge. It is also

urged by him that the permission to engage a lawyer as

required under the Bipartite Settlement was refused by the

Bank. He further submits that the petitioner was not allowed

to cross examine the witnesses.

5] We have gone through the report of the Inquiry

Officer. The petitioner participated in the proceedings of

enquiry and we do not find any prejudice which is caused to

the petitioner as a result of refusal of permission to engage

the lawyer in the enquiry proceedings. The question as to

whether the petitioner was not allowed to cross examine the

witnesses is a question on fact which we cannot adjudicate

4 wp1346.96.odt

for the first time in a writ jurisdiction.

6] So far as the question of holding of disciplinary

enquiry against the petitioner is concerned, in respect of

charge for which he was prosecuted by another employee, it

is a matter of discretion and depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. It is for the act of indiscipline

while on official duty which was the subject matter of enquiry.

Merely because the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal

prosecution, that does not mean that the petitioner cannot

be held guilty of the act of indiscipline in the establishment.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the

order of punishment.

7] In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

                               JUDGE                             JUDGE


 Rvjalit