[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ambadas Mahadev Khade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 26 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:14451
wp7817-18-J.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7817 OF 2018
1. Ambadas Mahadev Khade
Aged years, Occu. Suspended,
An adult, Indian inhabitant,
residing at: D-16, Pethkar Plaza,
Digitally
signed by
Peth Road, Panchvati,
ATUL
GANESH
ATUL
GANESH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
Nashik - 422 003. ... Petitioner
2026.03.26
12:14:18
+0530
V/s.
1. The state of Maharashtra
Through office of the government
Pleader, Civil Appellate Side,
Bombay High Court, Mumbai.
2. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited
a Company registered under the
provisions of the Companies Act
Having its registered office at Gateway
building, Apollo Bandar,
Mumbai:400001 and its plant
situated at:80/89, M.I.D.C.,
Satpur, Nashik:422007 ... Respondents
Ms. Gunjan Shah i/by Mr. Kayval P. Shah, for petitioner.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State-Respondent no. 1.
Mr. N. B. Jalota i/by G. K. Tripathi, for Respondent no.
2.
1
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:36:27 :::
wp7817-18-J.doc
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 12, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 26, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the
legality and correctness of the impugned Awards dated 11 January
2018 and 21 April 2018 passed by the Labour Court at Nashik in
Reference (IDA) No. 42 of 2014. By the said Awards, the Labour
Court has held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the
petitioner was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. It has further recorded a finding that the
conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. On
that basis, the Labour Court has ultimately answered the reference
against the petitioner.
2. The factual background giving rise to the present petition is
required to be noted in some detail. The petitioner was employed
with the respondent-company as a permanent workman with effect
from 1 November 1985. He initially joined in the O-2 grade and
continued to serve in the said capacity. At the relevant time, he
was working in the R&D-I Department of the respondent-company.
It is the case of the petitioner that throughout his service tenure he
discharged his duties sincerely and maintained good conduct. On
account of his work performance, technical competence and
training, he was deputed by the respondent-company to the Ford
Company in the United Kingdom for advanced training. In the year
wp7817-18-J.doc
1996, he was promoted to the post of Group Captain. According to
the petitioner, he had an unblemished service record and was
regarded as one of the competent employees of the respondent-
company. By a letter dated 21 December 2011, the respondent-
company placed the petitioner under suspension on allegations of
serious misconduct. The suspension was effected with immediate
operation, pending issuance of a charge-sheet, conduct of enquiry
and passing of final orders. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 28
February 2012 came to be issued to the petitioner. In the said
charge-sheet, it was alleged that on 20 December 2011 at about
7:45 a.m., a surprise inspection was conducted by the security
officer of the respondent-company, namely Mr. G. G. Wable, of the
locker allegedly allotted to the petitioner. During such inspection,
certain materials stated to be belonging to the respondent-
company were found in the said locker. On the basis of these
allegations, it was contended that the petitioner had committed
misconduct within the meaning of the Model Standing Orders,
more particularly under clauses 24(d) and 24(1), relating to theft,
dishonesty and acts subversive of discipline.
3. The petitioner was granted a period of 48 hours to submit
his written explanation to the charge-sheet. He was also directed
to remain under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry
proceedings and till final orders were passed. It was further
indicated that he would be entitled to subsistence allowance in
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Upon completion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report along with findings on 22
wp7817-18-J.doc
November 2012. The said report was forwarded to the petitioner
by the respondent-company under a covering letter dated 29
November 2012. Thereafter, by an order dated 24 January 2013,
the respondent-company imposed the punishment of dismissal
from service upon the petitioner with immediate effect.
4. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik
Division, Nashik, by communication dated 4 April 2014, referred
the industrial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-
company to the Labour Court at Nashik for adjudication. The
dispute pertained to the petitioner's claim for reinstatement in
service with full back wages and continuity of service from 21
January 2013. The said reference was registered as Reference
(IDA) No. 42 of 2014. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court, by its
final Award dated 21 April 2018, answered the reference in the
negative and declined to grant reliefs as sought by the petitioner.
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Gunjan Shah appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the alleged incident is stated to have
occurred on 20 December 2011 and the petitioner was placed
under suspension on 21 December 2011. However, the charge-
sheet came to be issued only on 28 February 2012, that is after a
lapse of more than two months. It is her submission that the
petitioner, in his reply dated 9 April 2012, had specifically
contended that no locker was ever allotted to him and that no
locker was opened in his presence. It was further stated by him
that he had not signed any panchanama and that no copy thereof
was supplied to him. According to the learned counsel, these
material contentions raised by the petitioner have not been duly
wp7817-18-J.doc
considered by the authorities. Learned counsel further submitted
that during the course of cross-examination, the petitioner had
categorically denied having signed the panchanama and had
specifically disputed that the signature appearing thereon was his.
It was also brought on record that the panchanama was allegedly
shown to the petitioner for the first time on 16 April 2012 during
the course of the domestic enquiry. It is pointed out that the
Management witnesses themselves have admitted that no copy of
the panchanama was furnished to the petitioner at the time when
it was allegedly prepared. It is further submitted that the
panchanama itself does not record the presence of the petitioner at
the relevant time. A perusal of paragraph 1 of the panchanama
shows that it records only the presence of two panch witnesses.
There is no recital in the entire document indicating that the
petitioner was present when the panchanama was drawn. Except
for the alleged signature appearing at the end of the document,
there is nothing to establish his presence. The petitioner has
specifically denied the said signature. In these circumstances, it is
contended that the panchanama dated 20 December 2011 is
doubtful and suffers from inconsistencies, and therefore cannot be
relied upon. It is further urged that the alleged signature of the
petitioner is fabricated and that the petitioner has deposed on oath
that the document was neither executed in his presence nor signed
by him.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the entire case of the
respondent-company rests on the assertion that the petitioner
handed over the keys of the locker and hence the locker belonged
wp7817-18-J.doc
to him. It is contended that there is no documentary evidence
whatsoever to establish that the locker in question was allotted to
the petitioner. The petitioner, in his evidence, has categorically
stated that the locker neither belonged to him nor was allotted to
him. The Management witnesses have also admitted that there is
no documentary proof regarding allotment of the locker, lock or
keys to the petitioner. In the absence of proof of allotment or
exclusive use, it cannot be inferred that the articles allegedly found
therein were in the possession of the petitioner. It is further the
case of the petitioner that the charges have been levelled against
him with ulterior motives. It is further submitted that there are
material contradictions in the evidence of the Management
witnesses regarding the alleged sealing of the locker prior to the
incident. While one witness stated that the locker was sealed,
other witnesses have categorically deposed that no such sealing
was carried out. In cross-examination, witnesses including Shri
Wable, Shri Mayekar and Shri Palwe admitted that the locker was
not sealed, that there was no documentary proof of such sealing,
no order to that effect and no intimation was given to the
petitioner. These admissions, according to the petitioner, render
the version of the Management unreliable. Learned counsel further
submitted that although certain documents were produced before
the Enquiry Officer, the Management failed to produce the actual
seized articles until the conclusion of its evidence. The articles
were eventually produced through one Shri Raskar, who was not
present at the time of the alleged inspection or preparation of the
panchanama. It is pointed out that the bag containing the articles
wp7817-18-J.doc
did not bear any signatures indicating its custody or transfer. Shri
Raskar has admitted that there was no such endorsement and
further that he had not verified the articles before submitting his
report. It is, therefore, contended that the entire process suffers
from serious infirmities. It is also urged that the punishment of
dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate.
7. It is further submitted that the respondent-company did not
issue any show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain
the proposed punishment nor did it await any reply from him
before passing the order of dismissal. The charge-sheet itself, along
with the name of the Enquiry Officer, was issued after a
considerable delay from the date of the alleged incident. According
to the petitioner, this procedure is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. Learned counsel also submitted that no complaint
regarding loss of property nor any criminal proceedings were
initiated by the respondent-company against the petitioner in
respect of the alleged theft. This, according to her, weakens the
case of the Management. On these grounds, it is prayed that the
impugned Award be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Latur vs. Bhushan
Jagannathrao Bulbule, reported in (2018) 5 Mh. L.J. 936 .
8. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. N. B. Jalota appearing for
respondent No. 2 opposed the petition and submitted that the
petitioner was employed as a permanent workman in the Nashik
plant since 1 November 1985 and was working in the R&D
Department in O-2 grade. On 20 December 2011, the petitioner
wp7817-18-J.doc
was assigned to the first shift commencing at 7:00 a.m. On that
day, a surprise inspection of the locker allotted to the petitioner
was conducted by the Security Officer, Shri G. G. Wable, in the
presence of Shri Mangesh Palave and Shri Narayan Mayekar, both
Assistant Managers in the R&D Department. It is submitted that
upon opening the locker, materials belonging to the respondent-
company were found therein. According to the respondent, these
materials were unauthorisedly kept by the petitioner. It is
contended that the petitioner has not offered any satisfactory
explanation for the presence of these articles in the locker. A
charge-sheet dated 28 February 2012 was thereafter issued. A
panchanama recording the articles found in the locker was
prepared on 20 December 2011 itself. It is the case of the
respondent that the petitioner had signed the said panchanama
and had also handed over the keys of the locker for its opening.
Learned counsel submitted that the contention raised by the
petitioner that the locker was not allotted to him is misconceived.
Reliance is placed on the testimony of Management Witness No. 1,
Shri Ghanshyam Wable, who stated that the keys of the locker
were handed over by the petitioner. It is urged that this fact clearly
indicates that the locker was in possession of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that there was no cross-examination on this
aspect and no suggestion was put to the witness disputing this
statement. In such circumstances, the said evidence, according to
the respondent, stands unchallenged and must be accepted.
9. It is further submitted that once it is established that the keys
of the locker were with the petitioner, it leads to a reasonable
wp7817-18-J.doc
inference that the locker was allotted to him. The respondent
contends that, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, the
possession of the keys establishes control and use of the locker by
the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that the contention of the
petitioner in this regard deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel
also submitted that the petitioner has since attained the age of
superannuation on 31 May 2024 and is no longer in service of the
respondent-company. It is, therefore, contended that the question
of reinstatement does not arise. It is further submitted that the
petitioner, in substance, has admitted that the materials were
found in the locker, though he has attempted to explain the same
by stating that such materials were required for discharge of his
duties. According to the respondent, the nature of the materials
does not support this explanation. It is also pointed out that the
petitioner has not taken a defence that the locker was tampered
with or that the articles were planted by any third person. Thus,
the presence of the materials in the locker is not seriously in
dispute.
10. Learned counsel submitted that in the context of labour
jurisprudence, the standard of proof required is that of
preponderance of probabilities. On the basis of the admitted and
proved facts, it is contended that there is sufficient material to
hold that the petitioner had unauthorisedly kept the company's
articles in the locker. The findings recorded in the domestic
enquiry, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse. It is further
submitted that the panchanama assumes considerable importance
in the present case and constitutes a crucial piece of evidence.
wp7817-18-J.doc
According to the respondent, the petitioner was present at the time
of its preparation and had signed the same. It is contended that the
petitioner has not seriously disputed the contents of the
panchanama or its correctness. It is also urged that the Labour
Court has recorded a finding accepting the contents of the
panchanama as true and that such finding has not been effectively
challenged. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the
panchanama establishes the misconduct alleged against the
petitioner. On these grounds, dismissal of the petition is prayed for.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
11. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and going
through the record placed before this Court, this Court finds that
the dispute turns mainly on the question whether the domestic
enquiry was fair and whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer and accepted by the Labour Court can be said to be illegal,
perverse or so unreasonable that they call for interference in writ
jurisdiction. The petitioner has tried to show that the entire action
of the Management is doubtful from the very beginning. The
respondent-company, on the other hand, has stood by the domestic
enquiry and has submitted that the material on record clearly
shows misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The matter has
therefore to be tested on the basis of the record and the settled
limits of judicial review. This Court is not sitting as an appellate
court over the findings of fact. It can interfere only if there is a
clear error of law, gross perversity, or breach of natural justice.
wp7817-18-J.doc
12. The first submission of the petitioner is regarding delay in
issuing the charge sheet. It is correct that the alleged incident is of
20 December 2011 and the charge sheet came to be issued on 28
February 2012. There is some gap of time. But every delay does
not make the action bad in law. The Court has to see whether such
delay has actually caused any injustice to the employee or has
affected his defence in a real manner. Here it is seen that
immediately after the incident, the petitioner was placed under
suspension. So the employer did not remain silent. The process
had already started. Thereafter, the charge sheet was issued and
enquiry followed. The petitioner has not been able to point out
that because of this gap of time, any evidence was lost, or any
witness became unavailable, or his defence got weakened in any
specific way. In absence of such showing, delay alone cannot be
treated as fatal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept that
the proceedings stand vitiated only on this ground.
13. Coming to the issue of panchanama, the petitioner has taken
a very firm stand. He says no locker was allotted to him, nothing
was opened in his presence, and he has not signed any such
document. He also says that copy was not given to him at that
time. These are serious objections. They go to the root of the
matter. But such objections cannot be accepted only because they
are stated. They must be tested against the evidence which has
come on record. The Management witnesses have stated that the
locker was opened and the panchanama was drawn at that time.
The petitioner denies the signature. Now, denial by itself is not
always sufficient. Its weight depends on the surrounding facts. If
wp7817-18-J.doc
other evidence supports the Management, then mere denial may
not carry much value. But if the surrounding facts are
inconsistent, then such denial becomes important. Therefore, this
Court has to examine the entire material together. It cannot accept
or reject the panchanama only on one line of argument.
14. The petitioner has also pointed out that the panchanama
itself does not clearly show his presence. A document like
panchanama should ideally be clear on who was present and what
exactly happened. It should not leave doubt on such basic facts. In
the present case, it is seen that the initial part of the panchanama
refers to panch witnesses, and there is no clear line stating that the
petitioner was present. At the same time, the Management says
that the petitioner gave the keys and signed the document. The
petitioner disputes both. Because if the panchanama is not reliable,
then the very base of the charge becomes weak. If it is reliable,
then it strongly supports the Management. Therefore, this Court
has to examine it carefully. It has to see whether other
circumstances support the version of the Management sufficiently.
15. Then comes the question of the locker itself. The petitioner
clearly says that the locker was not his and was never allotted to
him. The respondent-company relies mainly on one circumstance.
That the petitioner handed over the keys. The witness has said so.
From this, the respondent-company wants the Court to conclude
that the locker belonged to the petitioner. This Court finds that
such conclusion cannot be accepted in a automatic manner. Having
keys may show some connection. But it is not the same as proving
allotment. Especially when serious misconduct like theft or
wp7817-18-J.doc
dishonesty is alleged, the employer is expected to show some
proper record if it exists. Normally, lockers in such establishments
are allotted and there is some system. If that is so, then some
document, register, or record should be there. In the present case,
the Management witnesses themselves have admitted that there is
no documentary proof of allotment of locker or keys. This
admission weakens the certainty of the Management's case. It does
not destroy it completely, but it does create doubt which the Court
must keep in mind. At the same time, this Court cannot overlook a
certain difficulty arising from the stand taken by the petitioner
himself. It has come on record that, while disputing the overall
case of the Management, the petitioner has admitted that out of
the articles mentioned at serial numbers 1 to 49, the material at
serial number 30, namely the apron, belongs to him. This
admission assumes some significance. It shows that the petitioner
was not completely unconnected with the contents found in the
said locker. Now, once such an admission is there, the Court has to
examine its effect carefully. If the petitioner's case is that the locker
did not belong to him at all and that he had no connection with it,
then the presence of his own article in that very locker raises a
question which remains not fully answered. It creates a situation
where his denial of connection with the locker does not appear
entirely consistent. At the same time, this by itself does not prove
the entire charge. But it is a circumstance which cannot be
ignored. In ordinary course, if a person's own belonging is found in
a particular place, it may indicate some degree of access or use.
The petitioner has not given a clear and satisfactory explanation as
wp7817-18-J.doc
to how his apron came to be in that locker if the locker was not
allotted to him or was not used by him. This gap in explanation
becomes relevant while appreciating the overall probabilities.
Therefore, while the petitioner has raised serious objections to the
panchanama and the alleged recovery, his own admission
regarding the apron creates a small but important link connecting
him to the locker. This aspect, when seen along with other material
on record, has to be taken into account while assessing whether
the findings of the enquiry are sustainable.
16. The petitioner has also highlighted contradictions regarding
sealing of the locker. He says one witness speaks of sealing, others
deny it. If the locker was sealed earlier, there should have been
some record or at least consistent oral evidence. Here, witnesses
themselves have also admitted that there is no document of sealing
and no information was given to the petitioner. But the Court must
see whether this point goes to the root or is only a side issue. The
core issue still remains whether the petitioner was connected with
the locker and whether company articles were found there. Even if
the sealing story is not fully reliable, it does not automatically
mean that the recovery itself is false.
17. Another submission of the petitioner is about the handling of
seized articles. He says that the articles were not properly
produced and were brought by a person who was not present at
the time of inspection. He also points out absence of signatures on
the bag. Proper handling of such articles gives confidence to the
process. If there are gaps, doubt can arise. In this case, it appears
that the handling was not very neat. There are missing links.
wp7817-18-J.doc
However, it must be remembered that this is a domestic enquiry.
The standard is not as strict as in criminal trial. The question is
whether, on a reasonable view, the misconduct is proved. Absolute
perfection in procedure is not required, but fairness is required.
Here, the Labour Court has considered the material and found it
sufficient. This Court does not find that the evidence is so
unreliable that no reliance could be placed on it.
18. The petitioner has also argued that no separate show cause
notice before dismissal was given. The record shows that charge
sheet was issued, reply was taken, enquiry was conducted, and
findings were recorded. After that, punishment was imposed. If
there is complaint about absence of separate notice on
punishment, the Court has to see whether this has caused real
prejudice. The petitioner has not shown that he could have made
any additional defence on punishment which he was prevented
from making. In such situation, this procedural point alone is not
sufficient to set aside the action.
19. The argument that no criminal complaint was filed also
cannot take the matter far. Departmental proceedings are
independent. An employer may or may not file a police complaint.
That does not decide the validity of domestic enquiry. At the most,
it may show how seriously the employer viewed the matter. But it
is not decisive. Here, the enquiry has been conducted and evidence
has been assessed. Therefore, absence of criminal case does not
help the petitioner much. On the side of the respondent-company,
much emphasis is placed on the fact that the petitioner handed
over the keys. This is indeed an important circumstance. It shows
wp7817-18-J.doc
some control or connection with the locker. From this, the
respondent-company draws inference of allotment. The Labour
Court has has accepted the Management version. Unless that view
is completely unreasonable, this Court will not interfere.
20. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not seriously
denied that the material was found in the locker. Once presence of
company articles in a locker connected with the petitioner is
accepted, then burden shifts on him to explain properly. His
explanation has not been found satisfactory. This is a finding of
fact. Merely because another view is possible, this Court cannot
substitute its own view.
21. Lastly, the standard of proof in such matters has to be kept in
mind. It is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is preponderance
of probabilities. The authority has to see what is more likely on the
basis of material. Here, all circumstances have been considered
together. The Labour Court has found that the charge is proved.
This Court does not find that such conclusion is impossible or
wholly unreasonable. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere
with that finding.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. The findings recorded by the Labour Court
holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, and that
the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse, do not
wp7817-18-J.doc
suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference.
23. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
(i) The writ petition stands dismissed;
(ii) The impugned Awards dated 11 January 2018 and 21
April 2018 passed by the Labour Court, Nashik in Reference
(IDA) No. 42 of 2014 are upheld;
(iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
24. The amount deposited by the respondent No.2-company
shall remain with the office for a period of eight weeks from today.
If within eight weeks, no interim relief is granted by the superior
Court, it shall be open for the respondent No.2-company to seek
withdrawal of the said amount.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
