Mangal Waman Kudekar vs M/S. Jaslok Hospital on 22 January, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:3202
                                                                                 21-WP-5932-2018-final.doc


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

                                                WRIT PETITION NO.5932 OF 2018
  SHABNOOR
  AYUB                   Mangal Waman Kudekar                           ... Petitioner
  PATHAN                            V/s.
  Digitally signed by
  SHABNOOR AYUB
                         Jaslok Hospital                                ... Respondent
  PATHAN
  Date: 2026.01.22
  17:42:16 +0530
                         Mr. Uday P Warunjikar, for the Petitioner.
                         Ms. Sejal Patel i/b Yash Vyas, for Respondent.


                                                         CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                         DATED    : JANUARY 22, 2026

                         JUDGMENT:

1. Petitioners have filed this petition to challenge the judgment and order of the Industrial Court that dismissed their claim for reinstatement and back wages.

2. Petitioner states that the respondent is a reputed hospital. She worked as an Aaya for about ten years before termination. She was earning Rs.10,000 per month at that time. Her husband earlier worked as a ward boy with the respondent. Her service record was clean. She alleges that the respondent did not follow legal procedure. She alleges that the termination dated 22-07- 2009 was illegal, mala fide and vindictive.

3. Petitioner further states that the respondent made false allegations of theft of a money purse belonging to a relative of a patient. It was alleged that on 19-03-2009 she committed theft in

21-WP-5932-2018-final.doc

room No.1606. She was issued a charge sheet on 24-03-2009 under Standing Orders 24(d), (i) and 25(x) of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. She denies the allegations. She claims that the charges are vague and baseless. She states that the respondent ignored a letter by the said relative stating that he had no grievance against her regarding the alleged theft.

4. Petitioner also states that the enquiry was conducted in haste. She claims that she was not given proper opportunity to defend. She states that cross-examination of respondent's witnesses was not allowed properly. She alleges that the enquiry officer favoured management. She contends that her termination was illegal and arbitrary and amounted to victimization and colourable exercise of power. She prayed for answering the reference in her favour.

5. Respondent filed a written statement at Exh. C-2 and denied all allegations. Respondent states that it is a charitable hospital. It alleges that on 19-03-2009 petitioner was involved in serious misconduct of theft of a money purse belonging to a relative of a patient in room No.1606. Due to the seriousness of the charge, a charge sheet dated 24-03-2009 was issued under the Model Standing Orders.

6. Respondent further states that a domestic enquiry was conducted. Petitioner was represented by her representative. Respondent examined witnesses. Petitioner cross-examined them. Respondent submits that the enquiry followed principles of natural justice and provided sufficient opportunity to petitioner. The

21-WP-5932-2018-final.doc

enquiry officer submitted his findings. Based on the findings petitioner was dismissed on 22-07-2009. Respondent states that the charges were serious and affected its reputation and business. Respondent denies victimization or colourable exercise of power. It prayed for answering the reference against the petitioner.

7. The Advocate for the petitioner argued that the respondent dismissed the petitioner on false and baseless charges. The charges against the petitioner were under Model Standing Orders 24(b), 24(i) and 25(x). The petitioner denied committing theft of any money purse. It was submitted that no one suffered loss because the purse was returned to the relative. Therefore the act cannot be termed as theft. The petitioner did not commit any fraudulent or dishonest act against the respondent and did not steal property of any employee as covered under Standing Order 24(b). It was also argued that the relative of the patient later informed the respondent that he had no grievance against the petitioner. The enquiry officer ignored this material fact. The disciplinary authority failed to consider the factual situation of the incident. The petitioner submitted that the punishment imposed has no legal basis and lacks propriety. It was submitted that the Court can review the punishment.

8. The Advocate for the respondent argued that the charges against the petitioner are serious. The misconduct affects the reputation and business of the hospital and cannot be tolerated. The domestic enquiry proved the misconduct. The Court has already upheld the findings of the enquiry officer and that order remains unchallenged. The respondent submitted that due to the

21-WP-5932-2018-final.doc

theft the management lost confidence in the petitioner. The enquiry was fair and proper. The findings are not perverse. The issue of proportionality of punishment is on record. The petitioner did not lead evidence to show that the punishment was disproportionate. The respondent examined one witness and cross examination did not reveal anything to disturb the proof of serious charges.

9. This Court reviews whether the domestic enquiry complied with principles of natural justice. The Court also reviews whether the enquiry findings suffer from perversity or are unsupported by evidence. The Court does not sit as an appellate forum on the facts. It intervenes only where there is legal infirmity, procedural breach, or manifest irrationality in the findings or where the punishment shocks conscience.

10. The charges relate to alleged theft of a money purse from a relative of a patient. Theft by an employee of a hospital is a serious allegation. It directly affects trust and the institution's reputation. The respondent had a legitimate interest in investigating such an allegation and in taking disciplinary steps if the enquiry proved the charge.

11. The petitioner relies on the assertion that the purse was returned to the relative and that no loss occurred. This fact, if proven, may mitigate the gravity of the alleged misconduct. However, return of the purse does not conclusively negate a theft or other dishonest act. It is possible for a purse to have been removed and later returned. The decisive question is whether the

21-WP-5932-2018-final.doc

domestic enquiry had sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the petitioner committed a dishonest act.

12. The record shows that the respondent examined witnesses concerning the incident. The petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. The petitioner challenges the quality of cross-examination. On the material before this Court there is no showing that the witnesses' testimony was fabricated or patently unreliable. The petitioner has not produced independent evidence that the purse was returned before the management detected the disappearance or that the relative's later letter was decisive exonerating material.

13. The petitioner argues that a letter from the relative stating he had no grievance was ignored. The presence of such a letter is material. The Court examined the document. Even if the relative later stated he had no grievance, the management could legitimately take a different view if other circumstances or testimonial evidence indicated misconduct. The enquiry officer is entitled to assess the weight and credibility of the relative's statement in the context of other evidence.

14. There is no record that the management rejected the letter per se without consideration. The petitioner has not shown a deliberate concealment of that letter by the disciplinary authority. The mere existence of a conciliatory statement from the relative does not automatically nullify contemporaneous evidence that supports disciplinary action.

21-WP-5932-2018-final.doc

15. The Court notes that the enquiry officer is the fact finder in a domestic enquiry. Courts must respect such findings unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Industrial Court reviewed the material and upheld the enquiry findings. The petitioner does not show that the enquiry findings are unreasonable on the face of the record.

16. The onus in a departmental enquiry rests with the employer to prove misconduct. The test is proof on preponderance of probabilities in domestic disciplinary matters. The respondent discharged its onus by producing testimony and the enquiry report. The petitioner contested the evidence but did not produce affirmative evidence that the purse was returned prior to detection or that the witnesses were untruthful.

17. The respondent asserts loss of confidence in the petitioner. Loss of confidence is a legitimate ground for dismissal where the nature of the employee's duties requires trust. The petitioner was in a position requiring trust while dealing with patients and their relatives. The punishment of dismissal for proven acts of theft or dishonesty is within the disciplinary domain of the employer. Petitioner argues that dismissal was disproportionate. Courts can interfere if punishment shocks the conscience or lacks any rational connection to the misconduct. In this case the record shows a serious charge. The enquiry found the petitioner guilty. The petitioner failed to produce evidence or convincing argument to show the punishment was arbitrary or disproportionate. No mitigating factors of sufficient weight appear on the record to require interference.

21-WP-5932-2018-final.doc

18. The petitioner invites this Court to review the disciplinary punishment and substitute a lesser penalty. Judicial interference in punishment is exceptional. The Court will only substitute punishment when the enquiry was invalid, the finding perverse, or when the punishment is manifestly disproportionate. None of these thresholds is crossed in the present record.

19. The petitioner has not discharged the burden of proving that the domestic enquiry was so defective as to vitiate its findings. The petitioner has not presented reliable, admissible evidence that conclusively contradicts the findings of guilt. The letter from the relative, even if favourable to the petitioner, does not by itself render the enquiry findings perverse where other evidence supports the findings.

20. The Industrial Court applied the correct legal tests. Its conclusion that the dismissal was justified on the material before it is not shown to be unreasonable or perverse. The punishment does not shock conscience. No ground for interference exists.

21. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)