Bombay High Court
Shri. Prashant Chandrakant Harshad vs The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 18 January, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:2378
49-wp-9430-2022.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9430 OF 2022
Prashant Chandrakant Harshad ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Sangli ... Respondent
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumedh Modak with Mr. Vijay Killedar for the
respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 18, 2024
P.C.:
1. The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the
Industrial Court dismissing revision against rejection of interim
relief prayed in Complaint (ULP) No.9 of 2018 not to proceed with
the show-cause notice for terminating petitioner's services passed
on inquiry where charge of misappropriation of amount was held
to be proved.
2. The petitioner is working as Superintendent in Social
Welfare Department of Zilla Parishad. According to Zilla Parishad,
the petitioner prepared bills of Savitribai Phule Scholarship
Scheme and attached a certificate that the bills have not been
debited at any time. However, such payments were already
debited. Relying on his letter, the bank issued cheque in the
49-wp-9430-2022.doc
amount of Rs.19,98,600/- in respect of second bills. According to
Zilla Parishad, the petitioner was not having charge of post of
Social Welfare Officer. The demand draft issued by the bank was
credited in the account of concerned hostel. The petitioner issued a
letter to the concerned hostel that the amount was credited in their
account inadvertently and to issue a cheque in the equivalent
amount in favour of the employee of the Zilla Parishad.
Accordingly, the petitioner in collusion with other employee
withdrew the amount of cheque and misappropriated the amount
by depositing the amount in his account in State Bank of India,
Branch Sangli. It is also alleged that the petitioner verified
proposals for financial assistance of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.50,000/- to
inter-caste marriage couples and sanctioned their proposal.
However, such marriages were never recorded in the Register of
Grampanchayat and based on such documents, additional financial
assistance was given to the concerned persons and accordingly
government money of Rs.4,70,000/- was misappropriated.
According to Zilla Parishad, it was also found that 163 suspicious
challans in respect of audit recovery fine, undisbursed amount of
scholarship and grant of exam fee was also found in possession of
the petitioner and the petitioner avoided to disburse cheque of
Rs.1,91,000/- in respect of Savitribai Phule Scholarship. It is
alleged that the petitioner misused government money, prepared
forged documents and made forge signatures and misappropriated
government funds.
3. For the aforesaid misconduct, the employer issued charge
sheet on 14 March 2014 in terms of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad
49-wp-9430-2022.doc
Service (Conduct) Rules, 1967. According to Zilla Parishad after
following due procedure, the Inquiry Officer rendered a finding of
charges having been proved against the petitioner. Based on the
inquiry report, a communication dated 26 February 2018
proposing punishment of dismissal was issued to the petitioner in
terms of Rule 4(7) of Part III of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad
District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 was issued.
The petitioner, therefore, approached the Labour Court. Along with
the complaint, the petitioner filed an application restraining the
Zilla Parishad from giving effect to the notice proposing
punishment of dismissal.
4. The Labour Court considered the inquiry report threadbare
and concluded that the charges against the petitioner of
preparation of record of false document, misappropriation of
government funds has been proved and is based on material on
record. The Labour Court, therefore, rejected the application for
interim relief.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision before the
Industrial Court bearing Revision Application No.5 of 2021. The
revisional Court dismissed the revision. The petitioner has,
therefore, filed present writ petition.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this court
has granted ad-interim relief protecting the petitioner which can
be continued and the Labour Court be directed to decide the
complaint within time-bound schedule. According to him, the
inquiry was conducted without following principles of natural
49-wp-9430-2022.doc
justice. Copies of documents relied in the inquiry report were not
supplied. No material was on record to prove the charges against
the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned advocate for the Zilla Parishad invited my
attention to the reasons assigned by the Labour Court and the
Industrial Court and findings recorded by both the Courts to urge
that both the Courts below have considered the material on record
and have arrived at conclusion that the petitioner failed to make
out prima facie case for grant of interim relief.
8. On perusal o the impugned judgment, it appears that nine
charges were levelled against the petitioner. All charges are in
respect of misappropriation committed by the petitioner. The
material on record indicate that amount of Rs.19,98,600/- was
deposited in the petitioner's personal account. All other charges
regarding misappropriation of various amounts appears to be
based on documentary material discussed by the revisional Court
in paragraph 10. It appears that based on documents produced by
the Zilla Parishad, the Industrial court has recorded prima facie
finding of misappropriation of amount.
9. Moreover, the petitioner made a statement before the Inquiry
Officer that he received Rs.14 lakh credited in the account of co-
employee and balance amount of Rs.6 lakh is still with the co-
employee. He has deposited Rs.20 lakh with the Government.
However, he raised a plea before the revisional Court that amount
of Rs.20 lakh was not deposited by him but by someone else.
However, in the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a
49-wp-9430-2022.doc
contention that he has deposited such amount to show his bona
fides.
10. It is well settled that the charge of misappropriation of
amount is grave misconduct. Since the charge of misappropriation
of amount is a grave misconduct, no interim relief can be granted
in favour of the petitioner.
11. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs.
12. It is clarified that the observations made in the present order
are only for the purposes of adjudication of present writ petition
and the Courts below shall decide the complaint on its own merits.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
