Bombay High Court
Shaikh Anissoddin Shaikh Shahbuddin vs The General Manager, Hotel Rama ... on 10 September, 2025
-1-
wp498.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 498 OF 2014
Shaikh Anissoddin Shaikh Shahbuddin .. Petitioner
versus
The General Manager .. Respondent
Mr. A. S. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Dankh, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PER COURT :
1. This Court, by order dated 31.07.2025 has held that the
enquiry conducted against the Petitioner is fair and proper and
findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. Consequently, part
(ii) of the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.
9/1990, is held to be not deserving any interference.
2. Learned counsel are heard on proportionality of the
punishment imposed by employer on the basis of proved mis-
conduct.
wp498.14.odt
3. Learned counsel for Petitioner/employee submits that
this is not a case of any mis-appropriation and the punishment
imposed upon the Petitioner is shockingly dis-proportionate. It is
contended that while dismissing the Petitioner from service, his past
record was not considered by the Respondent/employer. He further
argued that the past service record is also required to be given due
weightage as per the certified standing orders. According to him,
neither the gravity of the charge nor the mitigating circumstances are
considered/taken into account while imposing punishment. To
support his submissions he placed reliance on judgment in case of
Indu Bhushan Dwivedi vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2010 ALL
SCR 2043. It is his further submission that though charge-sheet
was issued against the Petitioner and departmental enquiry was
conducted, there is no criminal offence registered against him inspite
of the allegations of mis-appropriation of the property, criminal
breach of trust etc. This also according to him, indicates that the
charges of mis-conduct are not serious, to attract extreme
punishment of dismissal from service.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent/employer contended
that the mis-conduct proved against the Petitioner is serious in
wp498.14.odt
nature and the punishment of his dismissal from service cannot be
termed as shockingly dis-proportionate in order to cause interference
therein. It is his submission that this is not a case of discrimination
being done by the employer as the other employee against whom
allegations are made of fabrication of record is also removed from
service. In support of his submission that in case of grave mis-
conduct, there was no question to consider past record, reference is
made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Janatha
Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and
others vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others, (2000) 7
Supreme Court Cases 517.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that it was alleged
against the Petitioner/employee that on 06.10.1988 he approached
one Tajne, Cashier, and asked him to prepare a new bill of Rs. 21/-.
There is further allegation that said Cashier was threatened with dire
consequences when he question motive of the Petitioner. There is
further allegation that the Petitioner made him to tamper with the
bills/cheques and did make the bill 15247 appear as 15047. It is
also alleged that the Cashier was called upon to tear off the top
portion carrying serial number 15047 on the original bill and pasted
wp498.14.odt
it on the bottom portion of the audit copy of food cheque No. 15247
and these things have been made by the Petitioner himself. On
issuing threat to the Cashier, the Petitioner extracted Rs. 507/- and
that the Cashier was also forced to manipulate the account and
figures in the food cheque and summary statement of sales.
6. It is held by learned Labour Court in Reference that the
charge of mis-conduct against the Petitioner/employee is duly proved
in the departmental enquiry conducted against him. The enquiry is
already held to be fair and proper. Even perusal of the certified
standing orders indicates that acts committed by the employee
amounts to serious/grave mis-conduct attracting major penalty.
Further, there is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was
given an opportunity of hearing before imposition of punishment.
Thus, this is not a case wherein the principles of natural justice are
flouted in any manner.
7. Insofar as contention of learned counsel for Petitioner
with regard to non-consideration of past record is concerned, even if
it is accepted that the Petitioner was having clean past record, the
proved mis-conduct against the Petitioner is certainly serious/grave
wp498.14.odt
in nature. Once such grave mis-conduct is proved it becomes
immaterial as to whether the Petitioner was having any antecedents
or not. No employer would take risk of continuing such an employee
on the establishment. The acts done by Petitioner/employee are more
serious than mis-appropriation by himself. Here is the case where
the employee could dare to compel/force another employee to
manipulate record extract money. The previous clear record,
therefore, in such circumstances become irrelevant for decision on
punishment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Janatha Bazar
(supra) has clearly held that in case of grave mis-conduct there was
no question of considering past record.
8. It is settled position of law that in order to cause
interference in the punishment, the punishment must be shockingly
dis-proportionate. Having regard to the facts of the case and the
nature of mis-conduct committed by the Petitioner, the punishment
imposed upon the Petitioner does not shock the conscience of this
Court in order to term it as shockingly dis-proportionate punishment
and to consequently cause interference therein.
wp498.14.odt
9. As a result of above discussion, the Petitioner has failed
to make out any case to cause interference in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Petition stands dismissed.
( R. M. JOSHI)
Judge
dyb
