Shri Sainath Chandrakant Lakhe v. The Municipal Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagarpalika
bsb 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 OF 2015 Sainath Chandrakant Lakhe Monica Bldg. No.B, Flat No.S/1, Bhairavnath Nagar, Kate Pimple Road, Pimprigaon, Pune.
... Petitioner v/s The Municipal Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagarpalika, Pimpri, Pune.
... Respondent Mr.Nitin Kulkarni along with Avinash Belge for the petitioner. None present for the respondent.
CORAM: N.M. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 14 OCTOBER 2015 ORAL ORDER:
By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 9 March 2015 passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the Complaint filed by the Petitioner.
2.
The Petitioner is working in the Octroi Department of the Respondent Corporation. He filed Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2008 in the Industrial Court, Pune. It was the contention of the Petitioner that the punishment of stoppage of two increments imposed upon the Petitioner was not legal and proper. According
bsb 2 to him, the amount of Rs.520/- which was found on his person was his personal amount and he had given cogent explanation regarding the same which was wrongfully rejected by the authority. According to him, the enquiry held and the punishment imposed was illegal.
3.
The Industrial Court, by an order dated 16 January 2015 held that the enquiry was fair and proper and by an order dated 9 March 2015 dismissed the Complaint on merits. The Industrial Court found that the punishment of stoppage of two increments could not be considered as shockingly disproportionate. 4.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no finding in the enquiry that the Petitioner has accepted any gratification and it was through sheer oversight that an amount of Rs.520/- which, according to the authorities themselves also, was personal amount remained to be entered in the register. He submitted that the explanation was given by the Petitioner as to how the amount was personal amount.
5.
The Petitioner was working in the Octroi Department as a Clerk wherein cash transactions take place and substantial amount of revenue of the Municipal Corporation is involved. In view of various instances which have been noted by the Industrial Court, the condition of declaring amount on person, at the time of resuming duty, is of importance as it curtails various other
bsb 3 undesirable activities of the staff members. It is not a mere routine exercise but has much wider object. If this condition is lightly taken, then it will open out defences of various nature in retrospect claiming the amounts as personal amounts. Therefore, it is desirable that the breach of this requirement is dealt with stringently. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Industrial Court that the punishment of stoppage of two increments is not disproportionate, cannot be faulted with. The Corporation has rightly taken stringent action which will act as a deterrent for other employees as well.
6.
No interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is accordingly rejected.
( N. M. JAMDAR, J. )