Bombay High Court
Narayan Namdeorao Salve vs The Managing Director Msrtc Mumbai And ... on 19 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:22465
WP-4129-2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4129 OF 2016
Narayan S/o Namdeorao Salve,
Age: 52 yrs, Occu: Nil,
R/o - C/o Shri Tipale R.G,
House No. 843, Mhada Colony,
Murtijapur, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Mumbai Central,
Mumbai
2. The General Manager (M.E.),
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Mumbai Central,
Mumbai
3. The Special Appellate Tribunal/Committee,
M.S.R.T.C. through It's President,
Mumbai Central, Mumbai
4. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Jalgaon ...Respondents
***
• Mr. M. G. Patil h/f Mr. A. S. Mali, Advocate for the
Applicant/Petitioner
• Mr. A. B. Dhongade, Advocate for the Respondents
***
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 12, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 19, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned
Umesh PAGE 1 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
order passed by the Appellate Authority dated
13.01.2016 dismissing the Appeal wherein challenge was
raised to the order of dismissal of the Petitioner
dated 21.11.2014.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Workshop
Superintendent in the year 1987. He came to be promoted
as Deputy Mechanical Engineer and had worked for 27
years and till the date of issuance of charge-sheet to
him, he had unblemished service.
3. on 22.01.2014, Petitioner along with other
Officers were appointed by Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation') as
members of Scrap Delivery Committee in Jalgaon
Divisional Workshop. There was a contract given for
lifting this scrap material for a period of a year. As
it was found that the weight and measurement machine
was not proper, Petitioner lodged complaint in this
regard. He claims that on assumptions charge-sheet came
to be issued against him. According to him, with
ulterior motive of his dismissal from service,
hurriedly inquiry was conducted against him. He was
issued with final show cause notice dated 19.07.2014.
Umesh PAGE 2 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
He responded to the said notice and claim innocence. On
21.11.2014 he came to be dismissed from service. Being
aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, he preferred
Appeal as provided by rules. He challenged the said
dismissal on the ground of misconducts being not proved
against him, so also the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate considering the nature and gravity of
charges. It is also claimed that no loss has been
caused to the Corporation. As appeal was dismissed,
this Petition is filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner has performed long and meritorious
service with Corporation and on false pretext, charge-
sheet came to be issued against him. It is his
submission that even in the said charge-sheet, there is
no allegation that by act of the Petitioner any loss
has been caused to the Corporation. It is his
submission that during the course of enquiry it has
come on record that difference in the weight of vehicle
loaded with scrap is possible for various reasons not
attributed to any individual. It is his submission that
there is absolutely no evidence in order to show that
Umesh PAGE 3 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
any misconduct has been committed by him or even there
is admitted misappropriation. It is argued that the
order of dismissal has been passed without taking into
consideration the gravity of the charges and also
mitigating circumstances. According to him, these
aspects are ignored by the Appellate Authority and the
Appeal is dismissed essentially on the ground that
there is a criminal offence registered against the
Petitioner. In this regard, it is his further
submission that the Petitioner has been acquitted from
the criminal charges in RCC No. 487/2014. According to
him, charges in the criminal proceedings and domestic
enquiry were same and since identical witnesses were
examined in both proceedings, in view of the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maharana Pratap
Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
890, action of dismissal of Petitioner is not
sustainable. He, therefore, seeks reinstatement of the
Petitioner in service with full back wages and
continuity of service.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents
/Corporation opposed the Petition by contending that in
Umesh PAGE 4 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
the criminal trial same witnesses were not examined as
they were examined in the departmental enquiry. It is
his submission that the nature of proof required in the
departmental enquiry is not as strict as the criminal
proceedings and hence, the acquittal of the Petitioner
in the criminal trial has no consequence about the
maintainability of the order of dismissal based on the
departmental enquiry. He placed reliance on the
following judgments in order to argue that both these
proceedings are independent to each other and the
result of one is inconsequential on the outcome of
another proceedings: Airports Authority of India vs.
Pradip Kumar Banerjee, Criminal Appeal No(s). 8414/2017
& Lalit Popli vs. Canara bank and Others, AIR 2003 SC
1796.
6. On merit, it is argued that actual
misappropriation is not required and considering post
held by the Petitioner, there is sufficient evidence on
record to indicate that he has involved himself in the
misconduct. It is further argued that having regard to
the discretion of the Employer/Corporation to take
action and limitation of this Court to cause
Umesh PAGE 5 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
interference in the findings recorded by the Enquiry
officer in an departmental enquiry, this is not a fit
case for setting aside order of dismissal.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that before
issuance of charge-sheet, Petitioner has rendered 27
years of long service. His past record is clean. He was
issued with charge-sheet on 11.03.2014 and prior
thereto, he came to be suspended on 23.01.2014. This
not the case wherein the Petitioner was not heard in
the departmental enquiry or was not given sufficient
opportunity in his defence. He has participated in the
departmental enquiry. The record of the enquiry
indicates that the statements of witnesses were
recorded in presence of the Petitioner and that
appropriate opportunity was granted for cross-
examination of those witnesses. He defended his own
case before Enquiry Committee. Admittedly, report of
the enquiry was provided to the Petitioner before
action of dismissal is taken. Order of dismissal was
preceded by show cause notice giving him opportunity to
respond to the proposed action of dismissal of his
service.
Umesh PAGE 6 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
8. The law on the point of re-appreciation of
evidence led in the departmental enquiry is settled to
say that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, it is not
open for this Court to reconsider the said evidence as
an Appellate Authority and to record independent
different findings. Perusal of the record indicates
that to support the charges of misconduct, witnesses
were examined. From cross-examination of those
witnesses, Corporation was able to prove the
misconducts against the Petitioner on preponderance of
probabilities.
9. At this stage, it would be relevant to take
note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Maharana Pratap Singh (supra). It is held
therein that where there is acquittal in a criminal
proceedings on similar or identical charges, evidence,
witnesses and circumstances, the action under the
departmental proceedings cannot sustain. Here in this
case, perusal of the record indicates that the
witnesses examined by the prosecution in the criminal
proceedings were not identical to the witnesses
examined in the domestic enquiry. There are more than
Umesh PAGE 7 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
three witnesses, which were examined in addition to the
witnesses examined in the criminal proceedings. Apart
from this, even if it is accepted that the Petitioner
was not found involved in the actual misappropriation,
there is evidence to hold that employment misconduct
has been committed by him. Thus, this cannot be said to
be a case wherein the Petitioner could be held innocent
for all the charges leveled against him.
10. Even if it is accepted that the charges are
proved against the Petitioner, for the purpose of
inflicting any punishment, it is mandatory for the
Employer to take into consideration the nature and
gravity of the charges and the mitigating
circumstances, if any. Here in this case, admittedly,
no loss has been caused to the Corporation. Moreover,
it cannot be said with certainty that the Petitioner
has done any conscious act in order to make undeserving
gain. Similarly, undeniably Petitioner has rendered
unblemished services of 27 years before the action in
question. A due weightage, therefore, is required to be
given to the said fact, while determining the
punishment.
Umesh PAGE 8 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
11. Not only Employer but also Appellate Authority
was required to take into consideration case
specifically sought to be made out before it by
Petitioner regarding proportionality of punishment. The
Appellate Authority has not taken into account the past
service record of the Petitioner and the order of
dismissal was confirmed essentially on the ground that
the image of the Corporation is damaged by the acts in
question. Since, Employer as well as Appellate
Authority have failed to taken into consideration
nature of gravity of misconduct, the past service
record and other mitigating circumstances, the order of
dismissal cannot sustain.
12. Petitioner is out of employment for
substantial period after his dismissal. Considering the
fact that this Petition is of year 2016 and that action
of dismissal is of year 2014, this Court finds no
propriety in relegating back matter to the employer for
imposing fresh punishment instead in the facts of the
case, denial of back wages would be sufficient
punishment for the Petitioner. In any case, he has not
made statement before the Appellate Authority of not
Umesh PAGE 9 OF 10
WP-4129-2016.odt
gainfully employed. Thus, even otherwise there would be
justification for denial of back wages.
13. In view of above discussion, Petition stands
allowed in following terms:
ORDER
A) Impugned orders of dismissal of Petitioner
dated 21.11.2014 and confirmed by the
Appellate Authority by order dated
13.01.2016, are set aside.
B) Petitioner is held to be entitled for
reinstatement in the service with
continuity of service and other
consequential benefits but without back
wages.
C) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Umesh PAGE 10 OF 10
