Shri. Prithviraj Ganpat Ravane vs Pune District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd.
2026 Latest Caselaw 462 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shri. Prithviraj Ganpat Ravane vs Pune District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. on 16 January, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:1732
                                                                                                  wp5162-2019-J.doc


                              AGK
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                     WRIT PETITION NO.5162 OF 2019

       ATUL                   Prithviraj Ganpat Ravane,
       GANESH
       KULKARNI               Age 52 years, Occupation Nil,
       Digitally signed by
       ATUL GANESH
       KULKARNI               R/at 310, Ghorpade Peth,
       Date: 2026.01.16
       12:53:52 +0530
                              Building No.1, Ramkrishna CHS.,
                              Pune - 411 042                                     ... Petitioner

                                                            V/s.

                              Pune District Central Cooperative
                              Bank Limited,
                              4-B, B.J. Road, Pune 411 001                       ... Respondents



                              Mr. Kishor Patil i/by Mr. Sachin K. Hande for the
                              petitioner.
                              Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir for the respondent.



                                                              CORAM           : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                              RESERVED ON     : JANUARY 9, 2026

                                                              PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 16, 2026

                              JUDGMENT:

1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dated 27 August 2018 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (MIR) No.2 of 2015. The Industrial Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 3

wp5162-2019-J.doc

October 2015 passed in Appeal (BIR) No.1 of 2006.

2. The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner joined the respondent Bank as a Clerk in 1990. The Bank confirmed his service in 1991. During the year 2004 to 2005, the petitioner was working as Acting Junior Agent at the Katraj Branch. The petitioner had a clean service record. The respondent had never issued any memo or charge-sheet during his entire service tenure. The respondent is a cooperative bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Bank has its own certified standing orders. The Board of Directors supervises and controls the functioning of the Bank. On 14 May 2004, the respondent issued a charge-sheet alleging misconduct. The petitioner filed his reply. The respondent appointed an enquiry officer. The petitioner participated in the inquiry along with his defence representative.

3. During the pendency of the inquiry, certain officers of the Bank informed the petitioner that the misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet was of a technical nature. They stated that if the petitioner submitted a written apology, the Bank would take a lenient view. The petitioner submitted a written apology due to such assurance. He states that the apology was not voluntary. He submits that he tendered the apology under pressure and on the assurance of the officers. He states that the Bank misused the apology.

4. The petitioner contends that the charge-sheet dated 14 May 2004 is false and illegal. He states that the charge-sheet is not

wp5162-2019-J.doc

supported by facts. He submits that there was no misappropriation or fraud on his part. He states that in spite of this position, the enquiry officer held him guilty. On the basis of the enquiry report, the respondent issued an order of dismissal dated 4 November 2005. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

5. The respondent Bank filed its written statement and opposed the claim. The Bank denied all allegations. The Bank stated that the petitioner was working as in-charge Junior Agent at the Katraj Branch. The Bank stated that the petitioner committed misconduct as detailed in the charge-sheet. The Bank issued the charge-sheet and conducted an inquiry. The inquiry commenced on 8 June 2005 and concluded on 24 July 2005. The petitioner initially denied the charges. The petitioner appointed Mr P.G. Borade as his defence representative. The Bank led evidence on 15 June 2005 and produced documents. On 20 June 2005, the petitioner and his defence representative filed an application at Exhibit 51. By this application, they admitted the charges and requested closure of the inquiry. The enquiry officer thereafter submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty.

6. The respondent Bank considered the enquiry report and issued a show cause notice. By order dated 4 November 2005, the Bank terminated the petitioner's services. The Bank states that the action was taken in accordance with law and after due process. The Bank prayed for dismissal of the petitioner's complaint.

wp5162-2019-J.doc

7. The Labour Court by Judgment and Order dated 3 October 2015 dismissed the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 84(1) of the BIR Act. The Industrial Court by Judgment and Order dated 28 August 2018 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Labour Court. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition.

8. Learned Advocate Mr Kishor Patil for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges. He pointed out that the petitioner served the respondent Bank from 1990 to 2005 with an unblemished service record. He submitted that the so-called admission recorded in the inquiry proceedings was tendered only on the assurance given by the officers of the Bank that no order of dismissal would be passed. He submitted that the charge-sheet did not allege misappropriation or financial loss. He stated that the first charge alleged that the petitioner credited payments of cheques handed over by third parties even before such cheques were cleared. The second charge alleged that the petitioner issued cheques without balance in the account which were dishonoured and subsequently cleared late. The third charge alleged that between 28 May 2003 and 6 December 2004 the petitioner overdrew the account and the Bank suffered cheque return charges of Rs 3,781. The fourth charge pertained to a cashier who withdrew Rs 200 on 11 October 2003 when the balance in his account was Rs 71.23 and that although the cashier obtained 31 cheque books, the petitioner did not recover the charges. On this basis, he submitted that the Courts below failed to consider the

wp5162-2019-J.doc

proportionality of punishment having regard to the nature of charges.

9. In reply, learned Advocate Mr Tapkir for the respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner expressly admitted the charges by filing an application dated 20 June 2005 during the inquiry and thus the inquiry officer rightly held the charges proved and the Bank lawfully terminated the petitioner. He submitted that in the affidavit filed before the Labour Court, the petitioner did not raise any plea regarding disproportionate punishment. He further submitted that the charge-sheet was issued under Clause 24 of the certified standing orders which covers misconducts such as willful insubordination, abetment or commission of fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business of the Bank, failure to account for or deliver property of the Bank or its customers, and repeated breach of applicable laws or standing orders.

10. He submitted that the charges stand both admitted and proved in the departmental inquiry. Therefore, according to him, the impugned Judgments and Orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

11. I have considered the rival submissions. I first deal with the challenge to the finding of misconduct. The petitioner stated that the charge-sheet did not allege any misappropriation or financial loss. According to him, the alleged acts were technical. He relied on his long clean service. He submitted that the so-called admission in the inquiry was not voluntary. He claimed that the Bank assured him that no dismissal would follow if he submitted

wp5162-2019-J.doc

an apology. He argued that the Labour Court and Industrial Court failed to consider the nature of the charges and the past service record.

12. The Bank disputed each of these contentions. The Bank pointed out that the petitioner filed an application during the inquiry clearly admitting the charges and requesting closure of the inquiry. The Bank relied on Clause 24 of the certified standing orders which treats acts involving dishonesty, breach of duty, and violation of lawful orders as misconduct. The Bank submitted that the affidavit before the Labour Court did not contain any plea on proportionality. According to the Bank, once the charges stood admitted and proved, the punishment of dismissal was justified. The Bank submitted that the writ court should not re-appreciate evidence or reconsider the punishment unless the punishment is so irrational that it shocks the conscience.

13. On the aspect of proving the charges, I find no infirmity in the concurrent findings. The petitioner participated in the inquiry with the help of a defence representative. He filed an application admitting the charges. The inquiry officer recorded a finding of guilt. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice and thereafter passed the dismissal order. The Labour Court and Industrial Court recorded concurrent findings that there was no procedural irregularity and that the petitioner had admitted the misconduct. On these facts, the finding of guilt cannot be interfered with under Article 227.

wp5162-2019-J.doc

14. The next question is whether the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. The Supreme Court has explained the test of proportionality in several decisions including Union of India v. Bodupalli Gopalaswami, (2011) 13 SCC 553 . The Supreme Court has held that judicial review does not sit in appeal over the quantum of punishment. Interference is justified only when the punishment is so harsh and irrational that it shocks the conscience. The Court has clarified that mere disagreement with the quantum of punishment is not a ground for interference. Only in extreme cases of perversity or irrationality should a court interfere.

15. The petitioner relied on his unblemished service and the nature of the charges. The charges against the petitioner need to be seen in the context of banking discipline. The petitioner credited cheques before clearance. He issued cheques without balance which were dishonoured and cleared late. He allowed overdrawing of accounts leading to cheque return charges. He failed to recover charges for cheque books issued. In welfare terms these may appear technical, but in banking operations such acts strike at the root of financial discipline. A bank deals with public funds. Each officer must act within authority. If officers ignore clearance norms, issue or clear instruments without balance, or disregard procedural safeguards, the bank is exposed to financial risk and loss of public confidence.

16. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 that even where no loss is proved in every instance, repeated acts beyond authority amount to misconduct. The Court

wp5162-2019-J.doc

has stressed that banking discipline depends on officers following norms and limits. Acts beyond authority, even if purportedly bona fide, cannot be excused as errors of judgment. The very course of conduct is misconduct because it jeopardises public funds and undermines organisational discipline.

17. Applying these principles, the conduct proved against the petitioner cannot be viewed as minor or trivial. He was charged with acts relating to clearance of cheques, overdrawing of accounts, and failure to recover charges. These functions require strict adherence to banking rules and authorisations. The petitioner also admitted the charges during the inquiry. In this backdrop, the Bank was entitled to assess the gravity of misconduct in light of the need to preserve financial discipline.

18. I now test the punishment on the touchstone of proportionality. The punishment is severe. However, severity alone is not a ground for interference. The test is whether the punishment is so outrageously disproportionate that no reasonable employer would impose it. Banking institutions operate on trust. They cannot function if employees act beyond authority in the handling of instruments and accounts. The petitioner held a post of responsibility. His conduct involved a course of dealing over a period of time. It was not a solitary lapse. The charges relate to core banking functions. In these circumstances, dismissal cannot be said to be irrational or perverse. The plea that no financial loss occurred does not dilute the seriousness. Banking misconduct does not depend on quantification of loss but on breach of discipline.

wp5162-2019-J.doc

19. The reliance on the petitioner's long service and clean record cannot override the nature of the misconduct. Past service may be relevant in deciding the penalty. However, in matters of banking discipline, courts have consistently taken the view that technical breaches can attract serious consequences because they undermine public confidence. Once the misconduct stands proved and the employer considers that the continuance of the delinquent officer would be detrimental, courts do not substitute their own views unless the penalty shocks the conscience. I find no such shock here.

20. The plea that the admission in the inquiry was obtained under assurance has no merit. The petitioner had legal representation. He did not protest at the time of admission. He did not plead coercion before the disciplinary authority. He did not raise the plea in his affidavit before the Labour Court. The Courts below have concurrently rejected this contention. There is no perversity in that view.

21. On these facts, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The punishment does not appear to be vindictive or outrageous. It does not disclose any bias. It aligns with the principles governing banking discipline. The writ petition therefore fails on both counts, namely, validity of findings and proportionality of punishment.

22. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)