Inquiry Becomes Necessary Only To Establish Charge When The Delinquent Employee Disputes The Same: Bombay High Court
The Bench set aside Industrial Court order, and held that the admission in reply to chargesheet dispenses with formal inquiry; directed 3-year reversion with cumulative effect despite employee’s retirement.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has observed that an inquiry becomes necessary only to establish a charge when the delinquent employee disputes it. The Court held that where a charge is admitted in reply to the chargesheet, no formal inquiry is required, and the plea need not be recorded by an inquiry officer.
The Court set aside an Industrial Court order that had quashed a show cause notice proposing reversion of a Thane Municipal Corporation clerk who admitted misappropriating municipal funds. It directed a three-year reversion with cumulative effect, holding that his retirement on July 31, 2021 could not justify retaining the erroneous order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne observed, “…Inquiry becomes necessary only to establish charge when the delinquent employee disputes the same. The very purpose of seeking reply of the delinquent employee to the chargesheet is to examine whether it is necessary to conduct the inquiry. In a case where the charge is admitted, there is no necessity of holding any inquiry”.
“…In case of private employments where the likelihood of victimization is higher such preventive jurisdiction can be exercised by halting the unfair labour practice which is in the process of occurrence. However, this jurisdiction cannot be overstretched to mean that the Labour or Industrial Courts can prevent the disciplinary authorities of Government or semi-government servants from exercising their inherent powers of enforcing discipline and punishing the errant employee. Industrial adjudicators ordinarily should not jump in and usurp the authority of the employer and pre-decide the fate of disciplinary proceedings”, the Bench said.
Advocate Mandar Limaye appeared for the petitioner and Advocate R R Nair appeared for the respondent.
The respondent, an A-Grade Clerk in the Water Supply Department, was accused of not depositing Rs 2,77,116 collected towards water bills between April 1 and July 15, 2004. He was suspended on March 29, 2005 and chargesheeted on July 15, 2006 on six charges. In his reply of July 17, 2006, he admitted his mistakes, cited family problems and sought pardon. He had already refunded the amount. The Corporation revoked the suspension and, on February 4, 2009, issued a show cause notice proposing reversion to the post of Clerk.
He challenged the notice through a Complaint, where the Industrial Court held the Corporation had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, reasoning that the plea of guilt should have been formally recorded. The High Court admitted the petition on March 26, 2012 but refused interim relief.
The High Court held that the Industrial Court had treated the matter “as if it is a criminal prosecution”. It explained that a plea can be taken at two stages, on service of the chargesheet and before the inquiry officer, and that an admission at the first stage lets the disciplinary authority proceed to punishment. It added that an admission before the disciplinary authority may carry higher weightage, since that authority can punish.
The Court also held that industrial adjudicators should not entertain complaints against a mere show cause notice or “usurp the authority of the employer”. It rejected the plea based on financial hardship, saying it “cannot be a ground for pardoning serious misconduct”.
“If industrial adjudicators routinely entertain complaints against mere show cause notices proposing punishments, the State Instrumentalities would never be able to punish the delinquent employees even after the charge is held to be proved. There appears to be a consistent practice adopted by industrial adjudicators in entertaining complaints against mere show cause notices and granting stay on further action in pursuance of such notices. This results in a situation where employee continues in service and retires on superannuation due to long pendency of proceedings. Exercise of jurisdiction by industrial adjudicators against mere show cause notices tramples upon the power of the disciplinary authority to enforce discipline in its organisation. It is not that after imposition of penalty, the delinquent employee is without any remedy. He can challenge the punishment order and if he succeeds, he can be reinstated with or without backwages. In a case where charge is proved and employer wants to punish the delinquent employee, the Industrial Tribunal must stay its hands by not entertaining such complaints at interlocutory stage against mere show cause notices for imposition of punishment”, the Bench said.
It directed reversion for three years with cumulative effect from February 4, 2009, with pay notionally refixed only to determine pension. No recovery of salary or pension already paid is to be made, but reduced pension applies from January 2027. The withheld gratuity is to be released within six weeks after recalculation.
Cause Title: Thane Municipal Corporation v. Prabhakar Chango Shinde (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:44652)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Mandar Limaye with Advocate Vedant Bende.
Respondent: Advocate R R Nair.