Bombay High Court
Panjab Rajaram Kachare vs The Chairman, The Karad Janata Sahakari ... on 28 November, 2023
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2023:BHC-AS:35577
1 WP 8-19 @ WP 1916-18-Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2019
Panjab Rajaram Kachare ]
Age - 60, Occu. : Nil, ]
R/o. : Agashivnagar, Tal. Karad, Dist. : Satara. ] ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman, ]
The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., ]
Head Office at Shivajinagar, Karad, ]
Taluka - Karad, District - Satara. ]
2. The Chief Executive Officer, ]
The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., ]
Head Office at Shivajinagar, Karad, ]
Taluka - Karad, District - Satara. ]
3. Official Liquidator, ]
Deputy Registrar, Coop Societies, ]
Karad, District - Satara. ] ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1916 OF 2018
Panjab Rajaram Kachare ]
Age - 60, Occu. : Nil, ]
R/o. : Agashivnagar, Tal. Karad, Dist. : Satara. ] ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman, ]
The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., ]
Head Office at Shivajinagar, Karad, ]
Taluka - Karad, District - Satara. ]
2. The Chief Executive Officer, ]
The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., ]
Head Office at Shivajinagar, Karad, ]
Taluka - Karad, District - Satara. ]
URS 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 02:27:21 :::
2 WP 8-19 @ WP 1916-18-Judgment.odt
3. Official Liquidator, ]
Deputy Registrar, Coop Societies, ]
Karad, District - Satara. ] ... Respondents
Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nilesh Desai i/b Mr. Shankar
M. Katkar for Petitioner in both Writ Petitions.
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Gaurav Gawande i/b M/s.
Desai & Desai Associates for Respondent No.1 in both Writ Petitions.
CORAM :- SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE :- 28 NOVEMBER, 2023
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner, an ex-employee of the The Karad Janata Sahakari
Bank Ltd., is aggrieved by the punishment of dismissal from service
imposed on him and has filed these two petitions upon being unsuccessful
before the Labour and Industrial Courts in getting the dismissal orders set
aside.
2. Facts of the case are that Petitioner was employed as Cashier
in The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. He was further promoted to the
post of In-Charge Passing Officer on 09/05/2001 at Pal Extension
Division. However he was immediately reverted to the post of Recovery
Clerk from 09/06/2001. Upon receipt of complaints from
depositors/borrowers, Petitioner was subjected to two disciplinary
enquiries in the form of chargesheets dated 15/07/2004 and 07/01/2005.
He faced charges of misappropriating the amounts of depositor and
borrower of the Bank. After holding inquiry, he was held guilty in both the
disciplinary proceedings. He filed two separate Complaints before Labour
Court, Satara apprehending his dismissal. On 21/08/2006, two orders
were passed dismissing him from service. The Labour Court passed Part-1
Award in both the Complaints holding that the enquiries conducted
URS 2 of 8
3 WP 8-19 @ WP 1916-18-Judgment.odt
against the Petitioner were improper. Respondent No.1 - Bank therefore
led evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court set aside the
dismissal order dated 21/08/2006 by its Judgment and Order dated
16/09/2011 in Complaint (ULP) No.36/2006 and directed reinstatement
of the Petitioner with 50% backwages. In Complaint (ULP) No.36A/2006,
the Labour Court delivered Part-2 Award on 19/09/2011 by setting aside
dismissal order dated 21/08/2006 and directing Petitioner's reinstatement
with full backwages.
2. Respondent No.1 - Bank preferred Revision Application
(ULP) Nos.37/2011 and 38/2011 challenging both the Awards of the
Labour Court. Both Revision Applications were heard together by the
Industrial Court, Satara and by Judgment and Order dated 25/07/2013,
the Industrial Court set aside the Part-2 Awards of the Labour Court and
remanded back both the Complaints for fresh decision by the Labour
Court. After the remand, the Labour Court dismissed Complaint (ULP)
No.36A/2006 thereby upholding the order of dismissal imposed on the
Petitioner. Since the order of dismissal was upheld by dismissing
Complaint (ULP) No.36A/2006, the Labour Court declined relief of
reinstatement in Complaint (ULP) No.36A/2006 by delivering separate
Judgment dated 16/04/2014. Aggrieved by the Labour Court's decision
dated 16/04/2014 in Complaint (ULP) No.36A/2006, the Petitioner filed
Revision Application (ULP) No.34/2014. The Bank also challenged Labour
Court's decision dated 16/04/2014 by filing Revision Application (ULP)
No.4/2015. The Bank apparently filed its Revision regarding findings
recorded by Labour Court with regard to non-proof of Charge No.1. By
common Judgment and Order dated 11/10/2017, the Industrial Court has
dismissed both Revision Application (ULP) Nos.34/2014 and 4/2015
confirming the Labour Court's decision dated 16/04/2014.
URS 3 of 8
4 WP 8-19 @ WP 1916-18-Judgment.odt
3. So far as Complaint (ULP) No.36A/2006 is concerned, both
Petitioner and the Bank filed Revision Application (ULP) Nos.33/2014
and 5/2015. By common Judgment and Order dated 29/06/2018, the
Industrial Court has dismissed Petitioner's Revision Application (ULP)
No.33/2014 and has partly allowed Bank's Revision Application (ULP)
No.5/2015 setting aside the findings of Labour Court on Issue Nos.3 and
4.
4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 11/10/2017
passed by the Industrial Court, Petitioner has filed Writ Petition
No.1916/2018. In respect of Judgment and Order dated 29/06/2018, the
Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.8/2019.
5. I have heard Mr. Pakale, learned senior advocate appearing
for Petitioner. He would submit that Charge No.(i) in Writ Petition
No.1916/2018 has already been disproved against the Petitioner both by
the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. So far as Charge No.(ii) is
concerned, he would submit that no evidence is available on record to
prove Charge No. (ii). That the findings recorded by the Labour Court and
the Industrial Court with regard to Charge No. (ii) are perverse.
Alternatively, Mr. Pakale would submit that penalty of dismissal from
service is shockingly disproportionate considering the fact that only
Charge No. (ii) is proved and that Charge No.1 is disproved. So far as
Writ Petition No.8/2019 is concerned, Mr. Pakale would submit that the
Labour Court has correctly recorded finding with regard to unfair labour
practices on the part of Respondent No.1 - Bank and the Industrial Court
has erroneously reversed those findings. That, in both the cases, charges
have been proved merely on the basis of surmises in absence of any
concrete proof. He would submit that the service record of the Petitioner
URS 4 of 8
5 WP 8-19 @ WP 1916-18-Judgment.odt
is otherwise unblemished and blotless and therefore a minor penalty
ought to have been imposed on the Petitioner, even if any of the charges
are actually held to be proved against him. He would therefore pray for
setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Court and Labour Court
and pray for reinstatement of Petitioner with full backwages.
6. Per Contra, Mr. Bapat, learned senior advocate appearing for
Respondent No.1 - Bank would oppose both the Petitions. He would
submit that the Petitioner has committed grave misconduct of
misappropriation of funds of depositors and borrowers of the Bank and
has thereby breached their trust. The Petitioner has misused the trust
imposed in him by the account holders and has made erroneous
withdrawals from their accounts and pocketed their money. That, upon
receipt of complaints from account holders, disciplinary enquiries were
conducted against him and the Bank has led evidence before the Labour
Court in support of proof of charges. That since the charges are supported
by the evidence on record, interference by this Court in the findings
recorded by the Labour Court and Industrial Court is not warranted. He
would submit that dismissal from service is the correct penalty imposed
for serious charge of misappropriation by a bank employee.
7. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.
8. As observed above, two separate disciplinary proceedings
have been conducted against the Petitioner in respect of two sets of
charges. In both the disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner has been
dismissed from service. Even if the penalty of dismissal from service is
upheld in one of the two Petitions, the other Petition is automatically
rendered infructuous. In that view of the matter, the charges levelled and
findings recorded in Writ Petition No.1916/2018 are discussed.
URS 5 of 8
6 WP 8-19 @ WP 1916-18-Judgment.odt
9. In Writ Petition No.1916/2018, the Petitioner faced two
charges; (i) misappropriation of amount of Rs.998/- while effecting
closure of loan account of the borrower and (ii) misappropriation of
amount of Rs.1,300/- while effecting withdrawal of a deposit. So far as
Charge No.(i) is concerned, the same is held to be disproved by the
Labour Court in Part 2 Award dated 16/09/2011. Even after remand by
the Industrial Court, Charge No.(i) was again held to be disproved by the
Labour Court in its Judgment and Order dated 16/04/2014. The said
finding is upheld even by the Industrial Court by its Judgment and Order
dated 11/10/2015. Thus, so far as Charge No.(i) is concerned, the same
has been repeatedly disproved by the Labour Court and also by the
Industrial Court. The said finding is not challenged by the Respondent
No.1 - Bank.
10. So far as Charge No.(ii) is concerned, the same was held to
be proved by the Labour Court in Award dated 16/09/2011. The
Petitioner did not challenge the said finding by filing Revision before the
Industrial Court. At that time, the Revision was filed only by the Bank
and in Bank's Revision, the proceedings came to be remanded to the
Labour Court. Even after remand, Charge No.(ii) came to be proved by
the Labour Court. The said finding is upheld by the Industrial Court.
Apart from the fact that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove
Charge No.(ii), the Petitioner did not question the finding of proof of
Charge No.(ii) in the earlier Award dated 16/09/2011. Thus, if the
Respondent No.1 - Bank was not to challenge the Award dated
16/09/2011, the finding about proof of Charge No.(ii) would have
attained finality. In Charge No.(ii), the allegation against the Petitioner
was that the depositor had approached the Petitioner for premature
encashment of fixed deposit of Rs.24,000/-. The maturity value was
URS 6 of 8
7 WP 8-19 @ WP 1916-18-Judgment.odt
Rs.26,770/-. However, the Petitioner reflected amount of Rs. 25,470/- in
the passbook and misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.1,300/- by
forging the signature of depositor on withdrawal slip. This serious charge
of misappropriation of amount of Rs.1,300/- is held to be proved twice by
the Labour Court. The finding is upheld by the Industrial Court. I see no
reason to interfere with the said finding which is supported by the
evidence on record.
11. While determining correctness of findings recorded in a
domestic enquiry, the Courts and Tribunals can interfere only if the
findings are found to be perverse i.e. not supported by any evidence. Even
if there is some evidence to support the finding of guilt, Courts / Tribunals
cannot interfere in the finding of guilt by going into the aspect of
adequacy of evidence. In the present case, Charge No.(ii) is held to be
proved against the Petitioner and the said finding is supported by the
evidence on record.
12. Mr. Pakale has strenuously contended that the punishment
imposed on the Petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the
misconduct alleged and proved. I am unable to agree. Misappropriation of
amounts of depositor or borrower by a bank employee is the highest
degree of misconduct. Depositors or borrowers impose faith in the Bank
employees and breach of trust by them for personal gain cannot be lightly
brushed aside as a minor misconduct. For proved misconduct of
misappropriation of funds of bank customers, imposition of penalty of
dismissal from service would not shock the conscience of this Court. The
penalty is thus commensurate with the gravity of misconduct found to be
proved against Petitioner. I, therefore, do not find any error in the order
passed by the Industrial Court in Writ Petition No.1916/2018.
URS 7 of 8
8 WP 8-19 @ WP 1916-18-Judgment.odt
13. Since penalty of dismissal from service is upheld in Writ
Petition No.1916/2018, it is not necessary to discuss the charges and
evidence in Writ Petition No.8/2019.
14. I, therefore, do not find any merit in both the Writ Petitions.
Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed without any order as to
costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
URS 8 of 8
UMESH by UMESH
RAMESH SHINDE
Date:
SHINDE 2023.12.01
13:28:34 +0530
