Bombay High Court
Devendra S/O Pandurang Deshmukh vs Gondia District Central Co-Operative ... on 8 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7809
WP 2498 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2498/2024
PETITIONER : Durgesh s/o Sajanpal Maske,
Aged about 55 years, Occ : Suspended
Employee, R/o Vidya Wad, Sadak Arjuni,
Tah. Sadak Arjuni, Dist. Gondia,
Mob No.7499032245
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Gondia District Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd. through its General Manager,
having office at Main Branch, Durga Chowk,
Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia.
2. The Chairman, Gondia District
Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
having office at Main Branch, Durga
Chowk, Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2335/2024
PETITIONER : Devendra S/o Pandurang Deshmukh
Aged about 47 years, Occ : Suspended Employee,
R/o Wandra, Post Nilaj, Tah. Deori,
Dist. Gondia, Mob. No.9373347596
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Gondia District Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd. through its General Manager,
having office at Main Branch, Durga Chowk,
Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia.
2. The Chairman, Gondia District
Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
having office at Main Branch, Durga
Chowk, Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia.
WP 2498 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.D. Chopde, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent No.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent
of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority
deciding to undertake de novo enquiry the petitioners were before the
Industrial Court. The petitioners who are facing charge of
misappropriation of amount while working as a peon and clerk an
Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Bank in relation to
misappropriation of an amount of Rs.44,49,000/-. After a long enquiry,
the Enquiry Officer submitted report wherein the petitioners are held to
be negligent, therefore, the charge with which petitioners were charged
is held to be partially proved as against the petitioners.
3. Based on the enquiry report holding the petitioners as
negligent, a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioners as to why
the petitioners should not be dismissed from service. The same was
responded by the petitioners. Preceded by the said show-cause-notice,
subsequently again a show-cause-notice was served upon the petitioners
reiterating as to why the petitioners should not be dismissed from the
WP 2498 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
service. In the peculiar backdrop due to serious financial defalcation of
huge amount owing to petitioners' involvement in an act of
misappropriation to the gross extent, the respondent-Bank passed a
resolution to appoint an Enquiry Officer afresh so as to initiate
departmental enquiry de novo. On the strength of the said resolution,
the Enquiry Officer was appointed so as to conduct the departmental
enquiry against the delinquent employees including the petitioners
herein.
4. Being aggrieved by the initiation of de novo departmental
enquiry the petitioners approached the Industrial Court by presenting
the complaint. Before the Industrial Court, wherein a ground is raised
that the petitioners cannot be penalized on successive occasions, as
such, doctrine of double jeopardy was pressed into service. The
Industrial Court, while rejecting the objection taking into account the
extent of misappropriation of amount, has held that the report of the
Enquiry Officer does not bind the disciplinary authority, as such, it is
open for the Disciplinary Authority to render its own conclusions on the
charges after the proposed enquiry. Resultantly, application was partly
allowed, thereby awarding 100% subsistence allowance to the
petitioners, however, the de novo enquiry as decided in the resolution
was permitted to be proceeded with.
WP 2498 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
5. Raising challenge to the said order, it is submitted by the
learned Counsel for the petitioners that initiation of said enquiry leads
to breach of the principle of doctrine of double jeopardy. Nevertheless, it
would be seriously prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners since the
petitioners have already faced enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has already
held the petitioners herein as negligent, as such it is not open for the
respondent - Bank to initiate de novo enquiry and report of Enquiry
Officer binds the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, it is not open to the
Bank to undertake de novo enquiry. In support of his contention,
learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following
decisions :-
(I) Dwarkachand Vs. State, AIR 1958 Rajasthan 38
(II) K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector or Central Excise,
Shillong, 1971 (2) SCC 102.
(III) The State of Assam and another Vs. J.N. Roy
Biswas, AIR 1975 SC 2277.
(IV) Canara Bank and Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Pani and
Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1297.
(V) State Bank of India, Bhopal Vs. S.S. Koshal,
1994 Supp (2) SCC 468.
(VI) Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari
Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84.
(VII) Chattu Jathan of Bombay Vs. The Bombay Dock
Labour Board and others, 1996 (4) Bom. C.R. 658.
WP 2498 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(VIII) Muzaffar Hussain Mansoori Vs. The Union of India
and others (Writ Petition No.8523/2015 decided on
26/10/2018) and other connected petitions.
6. Per contra, Mr. Ghare, learned Counsel for the respondent-
Bank has supported the order of the Industrial Court by submitting that
since the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioners negligent and
punishment is not awarded based on such finding, it is open for the
Bank to disagree with the report presented by the Enquiry Officer. In
support of the same, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank has
invited attention of this Court to the Regulations framed by the Bank
dealing with the service conditions of an employee which permits the
Disciplinary Authority to accept or disagree the report and in the
process further enquiry can be undertaken. Taking recourse to the same,
the Bank has passed resolution to undertake enquiry by appointing new
Enquiry Officer. In support of the same, learned Counsel for the
respondent - Bank has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. P. Thayagarajan
(1999) 1 SCC 733.
7. Having heard the respective Counsel for the litigating sides,
it is a matter of record that the petitioners herein are charged with an
offence of misappropriation of amount to the colossal scale. The Enquiry
WP 2498 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Officer in an unequivocal terms has held the petitioners herein
responsible and also has rendered the finding that the charges involved
against the petitioners are partially proved. Eventually report, with
aforesaid finding, is submitted with Disciplinary Authority. Pertinently,
the report has not culminated into punishment by the Disciplinary
Authority.
8. Thus, upon receipt of the said report of the Enquiry Officer,
the Disciplinary Authority, may award punishment or equally may differ
with report so received and accordingly, direct de novo enquiry. As such
a resolution to undertake the enquiry by appointing independent
Enquiry Officer considering the enormity of the amount involved and
the complicity of the petitioners herein as is apparent from the record so
referred in the resolution, is available with the Disciplinary Authority.
Undoubtedly, as has been held by the constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B.
Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 727, it is open for the Disciplinary
Authority after receipt of the report and the evidence led against the
delinquent employee "disciplinary authority may agree with the report
or may differ", either wholly or partially from the conclusions recorded
in the report.
9. Apart from aforestated peculiar aspect, Regulation No.21
(f) which deals in detail with the service conditions of the employees
WP 2498 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
vests power with the Disciplinary Authority either to agree with the
report or may record its difference. The expression "differ" essentially
has to be construed in wider perspective, as such, it includes initiation
of enquiry afresh. Once the Disciplinary Authority differs with the report
of the Enquiry Officer, as has been laid down by the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in case of B. Karunakar (supra) it is open for the
Disciplinary Authority to adopt or to take recourse to undertake de novo
enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer. Nevertheless, considering the
amount involved and the charges levelled against the petitioners, this
Court is of considered opinion that de novo enquiry would be in the
fitness of thing, since respondent - Bank is custodian of money
deposited by the depositors.
10. So far as reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners on the judgments, cited supra, are concerned, the employees
therein were either exonerated or the punishment was awarded holding
the concerned employees as guilty. As such, in the aforesaid backdrop,
the doctrine of double jeopardy was pressed into service. Therefore,
initiation of fresh enquiry at the subsequent juncture was held to be
impermissible in the aforesaid judgment. Whereas, in the present case,
the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report holding the petitioners as
responsible with further finding that the charges levelled against the
petitioners are partially proved. However, the fact remains that there
WP 2498 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
was enquiry report and the Disciplinary Authority did not accept the
said report of the Enquiry Officer. Having disagreed with report of
Enquiry Officer, it was resolved to undertake the enquiry de novo by
appointing Enquiry Officer. As such, it cannot be regarded that the
petitioners are already punished by Disciplinary Authority and again
de novo enquiry is initiated. Resultantly, no case is made out to exercise
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to interfere with the well reasoned order rendered
by the Industrial Court. Resultantly, the writ petition deserves no
consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands
discharged. No order as to costs.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/08/2025 10:40:33
