[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nyaneshwar Nimba Chitte And Anr vs Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate ... on 17 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:12838
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3805 OF 2021
ATUL 1. Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate
GANESH
KULKARNI Board, A Trust duly registered under
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
the provisions of the Maharashtra Public
Date: 2026.03.17
12:27:58 +0530 Trusts Act, 1950 having its address at
K.C. College, 5th Floor, 123, Dinshaw
Vachha Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai 400 020
2. Dr. L.H. Hiranandani College Pharmacy,
C.H.M. Camp, Smt. Chandibai Himmatlal
Mansukhani Road, Off. Railway Station,
Ulhasnagar 421 003 ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Nyaneshwar Nimba Chitte,
Room No.7, Gurudatta Society, E Wing,
Jadhav Colony, Belwani, Badlapur (West),
District Thane
2. Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
through the State of Maharashtra,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner
of Labour, Sai Vihar, 2nd Floor,
Above Gurudeo Hotel, Shivaji Park,
Kalyan (West)
3. Third Labour Court, at Thane,
through the State of Maharashtra,
Office of the Labour Court, Office
Complex, M.I.D.C. Building,
2nd & 3rd Floor, Mulund Check Naka,
Thane (West) 400 604 ... Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:48:10 :::
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.29013 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3805 OF 2021
Nyaneshwar Nimba Chitte ... Applicant
Versus
Hyderabad (Sind) National
Collegiate Board & Another ... Respondents
Mr. Anoshak Daver with Mr. Chirag Sarawagi, Mr. Viraj
Bansod, and Mr. Dhaval Sethia, i/by Mr. Tushar
Goradia for the petitioners.
Ms. Smita Mhatre i/by Mr. Laxman Jadhav for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3-
State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 7, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 17, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By the present writ petition instituted under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged
the legality and correctness of the order dated 23 February 2021
passed by respondent No.3 in Reference No.223 of 2015.
2. The facts according to petitioner giving rise to the present
writ petition, as stated by the petitioners in brief, are as follows.
Respondent No.1 was initially appointed on a temporary basis in
the year 2001 with Bombay School of Business, which is petitioner
No.1. Subsequently, respondent No.1 submitted an application
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
dated 15 September 2004 seeking transfer to petitioner No.2.
Acting upon the said request, respondent No.1 came to be
transferred to petitioner No.2 by order dated 29 September 2004.
Several show cause notices, memoranda and warning letters were
issued by petitioner No.2 to respondent No.1 on different
occasions, namely on 5 March 2005, 21 October 2005, 18 April
2006, 4 November 2006, 13 November 2006 and 21 November
2006. These communications related to allegations of irregularity
in service, lack of discipline, disobedience of orders issued by
superiors, acts of insubordination, frequent absence from duty and
unauthorized absenteeism. On 23 November 2006, the Lab
Assistant addressed a communication to the Principal of petitioner
No.2 reporting that respondent No.1 had failed to inform about
the breakage of certain laboratory apparatus. In view of the said
incident, respondent No.1 was issued a show cause notice and
warning letters on 23 November 2006 and 4 December 2006
alleging negligence in discharge of duties. Thereafter, further
memoranda dated 15 February 2008 and 16 February 2009 were
issued to respondent No.1 with regard to allegations of
insubordination and unauthorized collection of fine. Several
complaints dated 8 October 2013, 30 April 2014, 9 May 2014 and
15 July 2014 were addressed by members of the staff and teaching
faculty of petitioner No.2 to petitioners Nos.1 and 2. Through
these complaints, the conduct of respondent No.1 was brought to
the notice of the management, alleging that respondent No.1 was
indulging in irrational and disobedient behaviour. The complaints
also referred to the role played by respondent No.1 as an active
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
member representing the non teaching staff and his participation
in the meetings of the Local Managing Committee.
3. In view of the complaints received, a show cause notice
dated 13 May 2014 was issued to respondent No.1 calling upon
him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated
against him. Respondent No.1 submitted his reply to the said
notice on 15 May 2014. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 passed an
order dated 22 July 2014 placing respondent No.1 under
suspension from service. Subsequently, respondent No.1 addressed
a letter dated 27 August 2014 to petitioner No.2 in which he
admitted the misconduct attributed to him and tendered an
apology. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 appointed an independent
Enquiry Officer by office order dated 14 October 2014 to conduct a
departmental enquiry in accordance with the Maharashtra Civil
Services Rules, 1979. On 16 October 2014, a statement of
allegations was issued against respondent No.1 and a charge sheet
came to be served upon him on 21 October 2014 in accordance
with the applicable rules. The enquiry proceedings commenced on
13 November 2014, in which respondent No.1 participated. During
the course of the enquiry, respondent No.1 voluntarily admitted
the charges contained in the statement of allegations. Since
respondent No.1 declined to contest the charges and accepted the
allegations levelled against him, the enquiry was concluded on 22
November 2014. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted his
report and findings on 24 November 2014 holding that the charges
levelled against respondent No.1 stood duly proved.
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
4. After receipt of the enquiry report, petitioner No.1 issued a
show cause notice dated 24 December 2014 calling upon
respondent No.1 to explain as to why punishment in terms of the
Maharashtra Civil Services Rules should not be imposed upon him.
Respondent No.1 submitted his reply on 9 January 2015 wherein
he again admitted his guilt and requested that he be pardoned.
Upon considering the material on record and the reply submitted
by respondent No.1, the petitioners passed an order dated 25
February 2015 dismissing respondent No.1 from service with
immediate effect. Thereafter, respondent No.1 addressed a letter
dated 25 May 2015 raising a demand for reinstatement in service
with full back wages and continuity of service. The petitioners, by
their communication dated 30 May 2015, denied the allegations
and demands contained in the said letter. Petitioner No.2 also
addressed a letter dated 28 July 2015 to respondent No.2
informing it about the grave and serious acts of misconduct
allegedly committed by respondent No.1 and stating that
respondent No.2 lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute.
5. Notwithstanding the stand taken by the petitioners,
respondent No.2 by order dated 2 November 2015 referred the
dispute for adjudication before respondent No.3. Pursuant thereto,
respondent No.1 filed a statement of claim before respondent No.3
on 8 November 2015. The petitioners thereafter filed an
application dated 23 January 2017 before respondent No.3 raising
a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the authority
to entertain the dispute. Respondent No.1 filed his reply in English
on 24 April 2017 opposing the said application and seeking its
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
dismissal. By order dated 29 January 2018, respondent No.3
granted liberty to the petitioners to raise the issue of jurisdiction
along with the other issues in the proceedings. Thereafter, the
petitioners filed their written statement on 29 March 2018.
6. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed a handwritten application
in English on 29 January 2019 before respondent No.3 seeking
permission to place certain additional documents and facts on
record. Respondent No.1 also filed notes of arguments on 4 March
2020, followed by additional notes and points of arguments in
English on 24 November 2020 and 30 June 2022 before
respondent No.3. By the impugned order dated 23 February 2021,
respondent No.3 held that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry
Officer was not fair and proper and further observed that the
findings of the enquiry were perverse. Respondent No.3
consequently directed respondent No.2 to take necessary action in
the matter. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have
preferred the present writ petition.
7. Mr. Daver, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners,
submitted that respondent No.3 has committed a serious error in
concluding that the departmental enquiry was not fair and proper.
According to him, the finding recorded by respondent No.3 that
respondent No.1 was incapable of understanding the enquiry
proceedings is wholly perverse and unsupported by the material on
record. He submitted that respondent No.3 failed to appreciate
several circumstances demonstrating that respondent No.1 was
conversant with English and was capable of understanding the
proceedings conducted before the Enquiry Officer. In this regard,
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
he pointed out that respondent No.1 signs in English and had filed
his Statement of Claim before respondent No.3 in English. The
verification clause of the Statement of Claim also bears the
signature of respondent No.1 in English and does not contain any
endorsement indicating that the contents were explained to him in
Marathi. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 had on
several occasions submitted applications to the petitioners seeking
promotion, revision of salary and other service benefits in English.
Respondent No.1 was working as a Laboratory Attendant. More
importantly, respondent No.1 had been elected as a representative
of the non teaching staff since April 2011 and had attended
numerous meetings of the Local Managing Committee
representing the interests of the non teaching staff. In the course of
such meetings, respondent No.1 had regularly signed the minutes
in English. Learned counsel submitted that a person occupying a
representative position in such meetings cannot plausibly contend
that he was unaware of the nature of the proceedings or that he
signed documents without understanding their contents. On this
basis, it was contended that respondent No.1 was fully capable of
understanding the enquiry process. According to the petitioners,
the entire foundation on which the impugned order has been
passed is erroneous and contrary to the record placed before
respondent No.3.
8. Mr. Daver further submitted that respondent No.3 lacked
jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute which had been
referred by respondent No.2 by its order dated 2 November 2015.
It was contended that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
1947 are not applicable to employees working in colleges or
educational institutions. According to the petitioners, the
institutions run by the petitioners are educational institutions
governed by the statutory framework of the then Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994 and the rules framed thereunder. In view of
the said statutory scheme, respondent No.3, according to the
petitioners, could not have assumed jurisdiction to adjudicate the
dispute.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
respondent No.3 erred in holding that the Enquiry Officer had not
followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 8(9) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979
with regard to recording the plea of guilt of the delinquent
employee. It was submitted that respondent No.3 incorrectly
concluded that the Enquiry Officer had not obtained the signature
of respondent No.1 after he had pleaded guilty. Learned counsel
pointed out that respondent No.1 had addressed a letter dated 27
August 2014 to the Principal of petitioner No.2 admitting his
misconduct and tendering an apology. The impugned order has
incorrectly recorded the date of the said letter as 9 May 2014.
According to the petitioners, the contents of the said letter clearly
amount to an admission of guilt by respondent No.1. Respondent
No.3, however, erroneously held that the said letter could not be
treated as a confessional statement. It was further submitted that
respondent No.3 incorrectly observed that apart from the letter
dated 27 August 2014 there was no written admission by
respondent No.1 and that the said letter could not be treated as an
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
admission of the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel
submitted that respondent No.3 wrongly concluded that the letter
merely reflected remorse and an attempt on the part of respondent
No.1 to avoid the disciplinary proceedings. It was pointed out that
a similar admission was again made by respondent No.1 in his
reply dated 9 January 2015 submitted after completion of the
enquiry proceedings.
10. Per contra, Ms. Mhatre, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1, submitted that respondent No.1 was
initially appointed as Hamal-cum-Peon from 2 May 2001 and
promoted as Laboratory Attendant with effect fom 21 May 2009
and not as Laboratory Assistant. She submits that having regard to
the nature of duties as a Laboratory Attendant discharged by the
respondent No.1, instructions were in venacular language -
Marathi and not in English language. She submits that petitioner
No.2 started departmental proceeding against the respondent with
mala fide intention and ulterior motive in order tot take revenge of
the leadership of the workers by the respondent and illegally
dismissed the respondent by obtaining signature on the false
consent/admission of the guilty-false allegations.
11. She submits that letter dated 9 January 2015 is obtained
under threat, coercion and under pressure. This letter is
subsequent to submitting of enquiry report and finding. Hence, it
could not be considered to arrive at conclusion that whether the
second party before initiating the enquiry pleaded guilty. In view of
this, the Trial Court has rightly mentioned that findings are
perverse. Therefore, it amounts to force.
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
12. She further submitted that the show-cause notice dated 13
May 2014 sent to the respondent was in English language and,
therefore, the respondent No.1 has requested that while receiving
said notice, he does not know understand English. Therefore, it
should be given in Marathi language. The respondent wrote letter
dated 15 May 2014 to the petitioner No.2 (employer) about
explanation in reply to the said show-cause notice denying all
allegations made by petitioner No.2 in Marathi.
13. She submitted that the respondent No.1 studied upto 5th
standard, and can sign in English, but it does not presume that he
knows and understand English. Moreover, in many cases if person
studied more than 12th standard, does not understand English.
Therefore, the allegations levelled by the petitioner No.2 that the
respondent NO.1 understand English is totally false.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 therefore submitted
that respondent No.1 has successfully established his case and that
he is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. It
was accordingly prayed that appropriate relief be granted in favour
of respondent No.1 in order to secure justice in the matter.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
A. Capacity to understand English and significance of written
admissions.
15. The petitioners rely upon several documents which show
that respondent No.1 had been using English in the course of his
official dealings. The material on record shows that respondent
No.1 signed the verification clause of the Statement of Claim filed
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
before the Labour authority in English. The minutes of meetings of
the Local Managing Committee also bear his signature in English.
These meetings were attended by him as a representative of the
non teaching staff. The fact that he was participating in such
meetings and signing the minutes indicates that he was involved in
institutional matters and was not entirely unfamiliar with written
communication in English. Particularly significant is the letter
dated 27 August 2014 written by respondent No.1 to the Principal.
In that letter he expressed regret and acknowledged his
misconduct. A written admission of this nature is not a ordinary
matter. When a person admits certain acts in writing, the Court
must attach due importance to such a document. It forms part of
the surrounding circumstances which the Enquiry Officer was
entitled to consider.
16. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the ability to
sign documents in English or to write occasional letters does not
automatically establish that a person fully understands
disciplinary proceeding conducted in that language. A
departmental enquiry often contains expressions and procedural
steps which may not be easily understood by a ordinary employee.
Illness, stress or fear of disciplinary consequences may also affect
the manner in which a person responds. An apology letter written
to a superior officer may sometimes be an attempt to seek leniency
rather than a detailed acknowledgment of each charge. For this
reason the Court must examine the surrounding context before
treating such an admission as conclusive.
17. In the present case, however, the apology dated 27 August
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
2014 was written even before the formal enquiry commenced. It is
therefore a contemporaneous document reflecting respondent
No.1's own statement regarding the events. Further, the record
shows that respondent No.1 again expressed similar sentiments in
his reply dated 9 January 2015 after the enquiry report was
submitted. The repetition of such statements cannot be ignored.
When these documents are considered together with the fact that
respondent No.1 regularly signed documents and participated in
meetings, it becomes clear that he possessed sufficient familiarity
with English to understand the allegations made against him. The
overall material therefore indicates that respondent No.1 was not
completely unaware of the nature of the proceedings.
B. Procedural safeguards and compliance with Rule 8(9) and
the principles of natural justice.
18. The next aspect which requires consideration is whether the
procedural safeguards prescribed under the rules were followed
and whether the enquiry satisfies the basic principles of natural
justice. Rule 8(9) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1979 lays down the broad procedure to be followed
during a departmental enquiry. In the present case, the record
indicates that a statement of allegations and a charge sheet were
issued to respondent No.1. These documents set out the acts of
misconduct attributed to him. The enquiry proceedings
commenced thereafter and respondent No.1 participated in the
enquiry. It is not the case that the enquiry was conducted entirely
behind his back or without informing him about the allegations.
On the contrary, the material shows that respondent No.1 was
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
present during the enquiry proceedings and he responded to the
allegations placed before him. The record further reveals that
during the enquiry respondent No.1 admitted the charges. The
Enquiry Officer has noted this aspect while recording the
proceedings. Once an employee voluntarily admits the allegations,
the enquiry naturally proceeds in a limited manner because the
need to record extensive oral evidence or examine witnesses may
not arise. The Enquiry Officer thereafter completed the enquiry
and submitted his report.
19. It is also relevant to note that the admission of respondent
No.1 was not an isolated statement made during the enquiry
alone. Even before the enquiry proceedings commenced,
respondent No.1 had addressed a letter dated 27 August 2014 to
the Principal of petitioner No.2 in which he expressed regret and
acknowledged his misconduct. This document forms part of the
record and supports the conclusion that respondent No.1 was
conscious of the allegations made against him. Later, after the
enquiry report was submitted, respondent No.1 once again
submitted his reply dated 9 January 2015 in which he sought
pardon for his conduct. These repeated statements support the
conclusion that respondent No.1 was aware of the allegations and
accepted responsibility for his acts. From these circumstances it
becomes clear that the essential requirement of Rule 8(9), namely
informing the delinquent employee about the charges and
recording his response, has been substantially complied with. The
enquiry proceedings were therefore not conducted in violation of
the statutory rules.
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
20. Therefore, when the entire record is viewed as a whole, it
becomes evident that the enquiry was conducted in substantial
compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 8(9) and
that the fundamental requirements of natural justice were not
violated. The respondent No.1 was given knowledge of the charges
and an opportunity to respond. The Enquiry Officer considered the
material placed before him and thereafter submitted his findings.
C. Was the Enquiry Officer's finding perverse?
21. A finding can be described as perverse only when it is so
unreasonable that no sensible person could have arrived at such a
conclusion on the basis of the available material. Courts exercising
supervisory jurisdiction must be cautious before interfering with
findings recorded in departmental enquiries.
22. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer had before him
several memoranda and warning letters issued to respondent No.1
over a period of time. The management had also received
complaints from members of the staff regarding his conduct. In
addition to these circumstances, there existed the apology letter
written by respondent No.1 and the subsequent reply expressing
regret. These documents constitute relevant material which the
Enquiry Officer could legitimately consider while evaluating the
charges. Therefore, even though the enquiry proceedings may not
have been conducted in the most elaborate manner, it cannot be
said that the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer were
entirely without foundation. The existence of prior warnings and
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
the written admissions of respondent No.1 provide support for the
conclusion that misconduct had indeed occurred. In that sense, the
finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be described as
wholly irrational or perverse.
D. Effect of procedural irregularities.
23. The next question is whether the procedural shortcomings
should result in setting aside the disciplinary action. The law
recognises that procedural defects may vary in degree. Some
irregularities are minor and do not cause real prejudice to the
employee. Others are serious enough to render the entire enquiry
unfair. The Court must examine whether the employee was
substantially deprived of a fair opportunity.
24. In the present case, the enquiry proceedings certainly show
certain deficiencies. However, at the same time the Court cannot
ignore the surrounding circumstances. The record contains several
earlier warnings issued to respondent No.1. More importantly,
there are written communications in which respondent No.1
himself expressed regret and acknowledged misconduct. When
these aspects are considered together, it becomes difficult to accept
the suggestion that the allegations against respondent No.1 were
entirely unfounded or fabricated. The contemporaneous
documents indicate that some misconduct had indeed occurred.
For this reason, even though the enquiry suffered from procedural
irregularities, the conclusion that respondent No.1 engaged in
misconduct cannot be regarded as wholly unsupported by the
record. Therefore, while the procedural lapses are real and deserve
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
attention, they do not by themselves render the findings of the
Enquiry Officer perverse.
E. Jurisdiction of respondent No.3.
25. The petitioners argue that the Industrial Disputes Act does
not apply to educational institutions and that respondent No.3
wrongly assumed jurisdiction. This contention raises a question of
statutory scope that depends on detailed classification of the
institutions and the contractual status of employees. The record
shows that respondent No.2 did refer the dispute under the
applicable scheme and respondent No.3 proceeded to examine the
factual and procedural fairness of the enquiry. The threshold
question of jurisdiction may raise arguable points. Given my
conclusion on the fairness point and since the end result is to
uphold the disciplinary outcome, I do not find it necessary to
decide the jurisdiction issue finally in this writ. The petitioners
may pursue that point in the appropriate forum if they so choose.
26. In view of the discussion and reasons recorded in the
foregoing paragraphs, this Court is satisfied that the impugned
order passed by respondent No.3 cannot be sustained. The
material on record clearly indicates that the departmental enquiry
was conducted after issuing a charge sheet and statement of
allegations to respondent No.1 and that respondent No.1 had
participated in the enquiry proceedings. The record further
demonstrates that respondent No.1 had acknowledged the
allegations against him and had tendered apologies in writing even
prior to and after the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer considered the
wp3805-2021 with iast29013-2025-J.doc
material placed before him and thereafter submitted the enquiry
report holding the charges proved. The finding recorded by
respondent No.3 that the enquiry was not fair and proper is not
supported by the record. The conclusion reached by respondent
No.3 proceeds on assumptions which do not find place in the
material produced before it. The documents relied upon by the
petitioners clearly indicate that respondent No.1 was capable of
understanding the proceedings and that the essential requirements
of the disciplinary procedure were complied with. Respondent
No.3 therefore committed an error in interfering with the findings
recorded in the departmental enquiry.
27. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds it necessary to
correct the said error.
28. Hence, the following order is passed.
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23 February 2021 passed by
respondent No.3 in Reference No.223 of 2015 is quashed
and set aside.
29. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
30. There shall be no order as to costs.
31. All pending interlocutary applications stand disposed of as
infructuous.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
