SAHMEDNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD THROUGHMANAGING DIRECTORMr. P v. Barde
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD926 WRIT PETITION NO. 4172 OF 2020SURESH DAGDU GIRIVERSUSAHMEDNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD THROUGHMANAGING DIRECTORMr. P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Vinayak Upadhye, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 9th SEPTEMBER, 2025P.C. :-1.By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage ofadmission.2.This Petition takes exception to the judgment and awardpassed in Reference (IDA) No. 14/2013, dated 31/07/2018, wherebythe reference is answered in negative.3.The parties are referred to as ‘Employee’ and ‘Employer’ forthe sake of convenience.4.There is no dispute about the fact that the Employee wasappointed with the Employer Bank on 03/05/1982. On 20/07/2001 hewas issued to the charge-sheet with allegation of commission of actmisappropriation of the funds. On the basis of the said charge-sheet,the departmental inquiry was conducted, wherein he was found guilty of926 WP 4172.2020.odt1 of 5
Legal Reasoning
the charges of misappropriation. The Employee was terminated by orderdated 08/03/2002. This termination came to be challenged by theEmployee in Reference (IDA) No. 14/2013. Since the Reference Courtrejected the contention of the Petitioner, present Petition.5.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the LabourCourt has committed error in not considering the grounds of challengedraised to the termination of the Employee in proper perspective. It is hiscontention that list of witnesses was not provided during the course ofthe inquiry which has caused prejudice to the defence of the Employee.He also argued that this is a case of non production of document andwhich vitiates the conduct of the inquiry. Finally it is argued that BranchManager as well as the present Employee were issued common charge-sheet and in spite of the fact that the identical charges are levelled andproved against them, discrimination has been caused by the Bank inimposing punishment. It is his contention that the Branch Manager wasimposed with the punishment of withholding of annual increment withwarning, whereas the Employee came to be terminated. To support hissubmission he has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench ofthis Court in case of P. M. Ratnakar Vs. UCO Bank, Mumbai and others,2009(5) Mh.L.J., 587.6.Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Employer supportedthe impugned order.926 WP 4172.2020.odt2 of 5 7.It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner-Employee wasissued with charge-sheet. He has participated in the inquiry. There is nogrievance made by him that he was not given an opportunity of crossexamining the witness of the Management during the course of theinquiry. There is nothing on record to indicate that any prejudice hasbeen caused to the Employee for not giving the list of witnesses inadvance. The learned Advocate for Employee was not in a position topoint out provision of any rule applicable to the parties which mandatesproviding of such list of witnesses in advance. In case the Employee wasnot able to defend himself properly, it was open for him to make suchgrievance before the Inquiry Officer. No such grievance seems to havebeen made during enquiry. Unless prejudice is shown by the Petitionerfor non supply of the list of witnesses in advance, it cannot become aground for setting aside the proceeding of inquiry.8.In so far as the the grievance about non production ofdocument is concerned, the order passed by the Labour Court clearlyindicates that there was admission given by the Employee with regardto receipt of all documents vide Exhibit C-5/24. These observationsmade in paragraph No.12 of the judgment are inconsoance with theevidence on record is cannot be termed that perverse.9.Finally coming to the issue of the discrimination caused bythe Respondent Employer in effecting the punishment upon two926 WP 4172.2020.odt3 of 5 Employee against whom similar charges are levelled is concerned, itwould be relevant to take note of the findings recorded by the LabourCourt in paragraph No.21 which reads thus:“21.In the case in hand, we can see that the roleplayed by the Second Party who was Cashier and BranchManager in the alleged act of misconduct is totallydifferent. The Cashier is supposed to handle the casewith utmost care and to make entries in the registermaintained to that effect. Whereas, the Branch Manageris supposed to supervise the work of all the subordinatedstaff. In the case in hand, it is alleged that the SecondParty, while acting as a Cashier, made false entries andthereby made false representation to the BranchManager while dealing with day to day business, andthereby misappropriate the amount. Therefore, when theSecond Party, while acting as a Cashier committedmisappropriation by taking false entries in the registerkept, the Branch Manager cannot be said to be equallyresponsible for his alleged acts. At the most, the BranchManager can be said to be not that much vigilant ordiligent while supervising on the subordinate staff.Therefore, the role played by both of them is totallydifferent. Though, both of them were chargesheeted witha common charge sheet, however, the same is not inconnection with the misconduct of the same nature.Therefore, with due respects, the observations in thecases relied upon by the Ld. Advocate Shri K. Y.Modgekar appearing on behalf of Second Party in thisbehalf, are not applicable to the case in hand.”10.The afore stated findings clearly indicate that though acommon charge-sheet was issued, what was alleged against the BankBranch Manager that he failed to supervise the work effectively. Per se,it cannot be said that he is involved in the misappropriation of theamount which has been alleged and proved against the PetitionerEmployee and proved against him. Having regard to these facts it926 WP 4172.2020.odt4 of 5
Decision
cannot be said that any discrimination has been caused by theRespondent-Employer in punishing two sets of Employees.11.If the nature of the misconduct is considered, there is acategoric finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer that the Petitioner-Employee has misappropriated an amount to the extent ofRs.1,41,000/-. He was working as Cashier, which position is of Trust.Thus this is case of breach of trust and misappropriation of publicmoney. The order of dismissal of the Petitioner therefore cannot betermed as shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconductin order to cause interference therein.12.In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition.Hence, Petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp926 WP 4172.2020.odt5 of 5