Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.10929 OF 2024

Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner

V/s.

Smita Virendra Patil ...Respondent

________________

Ms. Rita K. Joshi (through VC) with Mr. Ashok D. Shetty & Ms. Bushra

Moughal for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ravindra B. Nair for the Respondent.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Judgment reserved on: 10 JUNE 2026.

Judgment pronounced on: 18 JUNE 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1)Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for

final disposal.

2)The Petitioner-Bank has filed the present Petition challenging

order on preliminary issues dated 1 September 2023 passed by the

learned Judge, First Labour Court, Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No.58 of

2014. The Labour Court has held that the enquiry conducted against the

Respondent is legal, fair and proper but the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are perverse and not based on the material and evidence

Page No. 1 of 21

18 June 2026 2026:BHC-AS:24526

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

produced before him. The Labour Court’s Order dated 1 September 2023

was subjected to revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra

Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices

Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). By judgment and order dated 11 June

2024, the Industrial Court has proceeded to dismiss the Revision

Application. The Petitioner-Bank is accordingly aggrieved by the

decisions of the Labour and Industrial Courts on the issue of perversity

in the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has accordingly filed the

present Petition.

3)Petitioner is a Multi-State Cooperative Bank engaged in the

business of banking. The Respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk

in the Citizens Cooperative Bank, Pune. By order dated 30 May 2006,

Citizens Cooperative Bank Ltd., Pune, amalgamated with the Petitioner-

Bank and accordingly services of the Respondent were absorbed with the

Petitioner-Bank w.e.f. 3 July 2006. The Respondent was initially posted in

Pune Branch of the Petitioner-Bank. By transfer order dated 8 June 2011,

she was posted to work in the Accounts Department of the Bank at

Mumbai. By order dated 16 May 2012, the Respondent was transferred

from Accounts Department to Vashi Branch. She was relieved by the

Accounts Department on 17 May 2012 and was instructed to report to

the Vashi Branch on 18 May 2012. It is alleged that on 17 May 2012 the

Petitioner brought two policemen and confronted the Manager-Mr. H.D.

Bhat regarding her transfer to Vashi Branch. She was issued show cause

notice dated 18 May 2012. The Respondent, in the meantime reported to

the Vashi Branch on 18 May 2012. The Respondent failed to reply to the

show cause notice and was suspended vide letter dated 22 May 2012.

Page No. 2 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

4)Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Respondent by

issuance of charge-sheet dated 16 April 2013. In the charge-sheet, it was

alleged that the Respondent brought policemen for confrontation with

Manager -Mr. H.D. Bhat working in HRM Department complaining that

her transfer was for harassing her. It was alleged that the Respondent

misbehaved with Mr. Bhat and attempted to intimidate him. It was also

alleged that the Respondent made several complaints to Banking

Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India with copies thereof to Maharashtra

State Human Rights Commission, Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister,

etc. A corrigendum dated 17 December 2013 was issued replacing one of

the paragraphs of the original charge on account of typographical errors

therein. The enquiry proceedings commenced on 22 July 2013 and

continued upto 9 April 2014. The Respondent filed Complaint (ULP)

No.58 of 2014 in the Labour Court at Thane and sought restraint order

against the Petitioner-Bank from continuing with the domestic enquiry.

The application for interim relief was rejected by order dated 10 July

2014 and the departmental enquiry was concluded. In the meantime,

Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 6 December 2014 holding that

charges levelled against the Respondent were proved. The Petitioner

issued final show cause notice dated 12 January 2015 furnishing copy of

the Enquiry Officer’s report. The Respondent failed to respond to the

show cause notice and findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Petitioner-

Bank thereafter passed order dated 28 January 2015 imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service on the Respondent.

5)The Respondent filed Application dated 17 June 2017 for

amendment of her Complaint (ULP) No.58 of 2014 for challenging

Page No. 3 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

dismissal order dated 28 January 2015. The amendment application was

allowed by order dated 11 June 2018.

6)The Labour Court framed preliminary issues relating to fairness in

enquiry and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. By order

dated 1 September 2023, the Labour Court answered the issue of fairness

in the enquiry in favour of the Petitioner holding that the enquiry

conducted against the Respondent is legal, fair and proper. However,

second issue relating to perversity has been decided against the

Petitioner-Bank by holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

perverse and are not based on the material and evidence before him. The

Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of Labour Court on 1

September 2023 qua preliminary issue of perversity by filing Revision

Application (ULP) No.42 of 2023 before the Industrial Court and by

judgment and order dated 11 June 2024, the Revision preferred by the

Petitioner has been dismissed. Accordingly, the Petitioner has filed the

present Petition.

7)Ms. Rita Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-

Bank submits that the Labour Court has grossly erred in answering

preliminary issue of perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer in

favour of the Respondent. She submits that the charge of bringing

policemen in the Bank is virtually admitted by the Respondent by asking

questions to Bank’s witness (Mr. H.D. Bhat, Manager) in the cross-

examination. That the Labour Court has misread the charge levelled

against the Respondent. The charge was not refusal to obey transfer

order but the same was with regard to the act of bringing policemen in

the office of the Bank complaining about Respondent’s transfer. That the

Page No. 4 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

act of approaching the police and bringing them to Bank’s office

amounts to grave misconduct and it is not important as to what action

policemen took after visiting the Bank’s branch. That the allegation of

addressing various complaints is admitted by the Respondent. That

dispatching complaints to unrelated authority such as Human Rights

Commission, Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, etc. clearly amounts

to tarnishing image of the Bank. She relies on judgment of this Court in

Hitachi V/s. Niraj Kadu

1

in support of her contention that posting

defamatory posts on Facebook account is held to be grave misconduct by

this Court. That the Labour Court has erroneously held that mere making

complaints to various authorities does not amount to misconduct. Ms.

Joshi submits that the Industrial Court has failed to appreciate the above

position and has erroneously dismissed the Revision Application. That

the charges are duly proved by production of evidence before the Enquiry

Officer. That therefore, findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be termed

as perverse by any stretch of imagination. She accordingly prays for

setting aside the orders passed by the Labour and the Industrial Courts.

8)Mr. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent

opposes the Petition and submits that the Labour and Industrial Courts

have recorded concurrent findings against the Petitioner-Bank with

regard to issue of perversity in findings of the Enquiry Officer. He

submits that both the Courts have correctly appreciated the position that

the Respondent has duly obeyed the transfer order. That the Respondent

approached police only with a view to address safety concerns since she

was expected to travel from Pune to report to duties at Vashi office of the

Bank at 7.45 a.m. That Police did not conduct any enquiries and returned

1Writ Petition No.13192 of 2023 decided on 12 December 2023.

Page No. 5 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

after being apprised of the fact that a routine order of transfer was

issued. That the Respondent is unnecessarily subjected to domestic

enquiry even after obeying the transfer order. That no altercation

occurred nor any act of threatening has been proved. That thus, there is

absolutely no evidence to prove the allegation relating to misbehaviour

or intimidation. That the findings relating to first charge are rightly held

to be perverse by the Labour and the Industrial Courts.

9)Mr. Nair further submits that mere filing of complaints to

authorities do not constitute misconduct in any manner. That some of

the complaints were with regard to surety provided to the colleagues and

have been erroneously mixed up by the Petitioner-Bank. That the

Respondent is otherwise airing grievances with regard to her transfer

and mere airing of grievance cannot be constituted as a misconduct. That

concurrent findings recorded in this regard do not warrant interference

by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. He further submits that the impugned orders

otherwise do not cause any grave prejudice to the Petitioner, who would

have ample opportunity of leading evidence to prove misconduct before

the Labour Court. That the Petitioner has unnecessarily filed the present

Petition challenging the orders of the Labour and Industrial Courts. He

prays for dismissal of the Petition.

10)Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for my

consideration.

11)The Labour Court has framed two preliminary issues relating to

fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry

Page No. 6 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

Officer and has decided the same by order dated 1 September 2023. The

enquiry is held to be fair and proper and the Respondent has not

questioned the said findings. However, despite holding that the enquiry

is fair and proper and that full opportunity of defence is provided to the

Respondent, the Labour Court has decided the second preliminary issue

relating to perversity against the Petitioner-Bank. The Labour Court has

held that findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse as they are not

based on material and evidence produced before it. It is this finding of

the Labour Court, which is confirmed by the Industrial Court, which is

the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition filed by the

Petitioner-Bank.

12)The Respondent faced two charges in the domestic enquiry. The

allegations in the charge-sheet are as under:

Your were posted as a ‘Clerk’ at Accounts Dept. vide Transfer Order

dated 08/06/2011. Subsequently, you were transferred to Vashi branch

vide Transfer Order dated 16/05/2012. You were relieved by the Asstt.

Gen. Manager (Accounts Dept.) vide his letter dated 17/05/2012 and

asked to report to the Asstt. Gen. Manager, Vashi Branch on

18/05/2012.

However, after being relieved from the Accounts Dept. instead of

reporting for duty at Vashi Branch you came to the Bank alongwith two

Policemen and approached Mr.H.D. Bhat, (Manager) then working at

HRM Dept. You have wrongly informed the police that Mr.Bhat has

transferred you from Accounts Dept. to Vashi Branch to harass you. You

then misbehaved with Mr.Bhat and tried to intimidate him. However,

Mr.Bhat informed the Policemen that your transfer was of a routine

nature as per the administrative needs and there was no intention

whatsoever to harass you. On hearing Mr. Bhat they left the bank.

You are aware that as per the terms of your service the bank can

transfer you to any of its branches / Dept. Therefore, misbehaving with

Mr.Bhat (Manager) as aforesaid is an act of misconduct on your part.

We have also learnt that you have made false, vexatious and frivolous

complaints to the Banking Ombudsman vide letter

Page No. 7 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

Ref.No.BO(M&G)/Comp-10815/AAA/11-12 dated 30/04/2012, the

Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 28/05/2012 and copies

submitted to various authorities such as Maharashtra State Human

Rights Commission, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Dy.Chief Minister

of Maharashtra etc., the Reserve Bank of India vide letter

Ref.No.205/12.8.006/12-13 dated 09/07/2012 and Dept. of Agriculture

Govt. of India vide letter dated October 2012, copies of which are

enclosed herewith. It is evident that you have made these false

complaints before various authorities only to tarnish the fair name and

reputation of the bank in the eyes of the public.

Your aforesaid acts are of a serious nature having grave ramifications

to the interests of the bank. Your aforesaid acts amounts to misconduct

as per the Standing Orders applicable to you and you are hereby

charged with the same:

1)Willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and

reasonable order of a superior.

2) Doing any act or engaging in any business prejudicial to the

interest of the Bank.

3) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour

on the premises of the Bank.

4) Failing to show property courtesy or attention towards Officers,

employees and customers of the Bank.

13)The first charge related to the conduct of the Respondent in

bringing two policemen and approaching Mr. H.D. Bhat (Manager

working at HRM Department) and wrongly informing the police that Mr.

Bhat had transferred her from Accounts Department to Vashi Branch to

harass her. Charge-sheet also alleged misbehaviour with Mr. Bhat and an

attempt to intimidate him. To prove the charge, Petitioner-Bank led

evidence of Mr. Bhat. In his examination-in-chief, he narrated the

incident of 17 May 2012 as under:

Q.5 Can you recall and elaborate the incidence reported in Para 2 in

EXHIBIT No.16?

Ans. In May 2012, when Mrs. Patil was transferred to Vashi branch from

Accounts Department in the evening after close of working hours when

I was in HRM Department Mrs. Patil had come along with 2 policemen.

She had informed the policemen that I have transferred her to Vashi

Branch. The policemen who had accompanied her interrogated me and

asked on what ground she was transferred to Vashi branch. I informed

Page No. 8 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

the policemen that our being a Bank transfer of staff is routine and as

per the applicable Service Rules. On hearing my reply the policemen

being satisfied went away.

14)Thus, Mr. Bhat specifically led oral evidence deposing that after

close of working hours on 17 May 2012, the Respondent approached him

with two policemen. He deposed that the policemen interrogated him

and questioned the reason for Respondent’s transfer to Vashi Branch.

The Respondent does not dispute her act of bringing two policemen to

HRM Office of the Bank and in fact asked following questions to witness-

Mr. H.D. Bhat in the cross-examination:

Q.1 Is it true that when the police accompanied me in the Bank, is

there any dialogue between me and yourself?

Ans. The CSE was talking with the Police and then police enquired

with me

15)Thus, the factum of the Respondent bringing policemen to the

Bank’s office is not disputed by the Respondent. Deposition of Mr. Bhat

proves that the policemen were brought by the Respondent to the Bank’s

office to question the reason for Respondent’s transfer to Vashi Branch.

Mr. Bhat’s evidence also indicates that he was interrogated by the

policemen with regard to Respondent’s transfer. However, in the cross-

examination, Mr. Bhat did not depose that there was any dialogue

between him and the Respondent. Therefore, the part of allegation “you

then misbehaved with Mr. Bhat’ is not proved. However, the allegation of

attempt to intimidate Mr. Bhat can be held to be proved since policemen

interrogated Mr. Bhat with reference to transfer of the Respondent to

Vashi Branch. When a bank official is interrogated by the police, the

officer is bound to feel intimidated.

Page No. 9 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

16)The very act of the Respondent approaching police and

complaining about her transfer to Vashi Branch constitutes misconduct.

If the Respondent was aggrieved by her transfer to Vashi Branch, she

ought to have adopted the known channels or remedies by making

representations to Bank officials. She should not have approached police

complaining about her transfer. In the present case, the Respondent did

not stop at approaching police, but she brought two policemen to the

Branch alleging that she was being harassed. The policemen were

brought for interrogating the bank officer about the exact reason for her

transfer. Such a conduct on the part of the Respondent undoubtedly

constitutes misconduct. The Labour Court has however, completely

misread charge No.1 to mean as if the charge was with regard to failure

to obey the transfer order. The Labour Court has held in paragraph 33 of

its judgment as under:

33. Here, the Transfer Order dated 16/5/2012 is on record filed below

exhibit 12 of enquiry proceeding by which the complainant was

transferred from account department to Vashi and she was relieved by

relieving order dated 17/05/2012 file below exhibit 13 of enquiry

proceeding. Here,from her email filed at exhibit 29 of enquiry

proceeding and her reply to chargesheet filed at exhibit 37 of the

enquiry proceeding, it clearly reveals that as per the relieving order

dated 17/05/2012, she had reported to Vashi branch on 18/05/2012 at

7.45 AM and joined the branch and thus, she had duly obeyed the order

of her superior. This fact of reporting to Vashi branch has nowhere

denied by the respondent bank. Even the witness of respondent bank

has nowhere stated in his evidence that she had not reported at Vashi

at 7.45 AM. Despite this fact, the enquiry officer has drawn a wrong

conclusion stating that on 18/5/2012, it is seen that instead of joining

at Vashi branch, the complainant came to the bank along with two

police men. Here, by reporting duty at Vashi on 7.45 AM on 18/05/2012,

it is seen that the complainant had duly obeyed the order of her

superior. No evidence is on record to show that she disobeyed the order

of superintendent and on that day, she misbehaved with Mr Bhat and

tried to intermediate him.

Page No. 10 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

17)Merely because Respondent reported to duty at Vashi Branch on 18

May 2012 at 7.45 a.m. it did not mean that she did not commit the

misconduct of bringing policemen to branch’s office and subjecting Mr.

Bhat to interrogation. The charge-sheet never levelled the allegation of

refusal to obey transfer order. Therefore, findings recorded by the Labour

Court in paragraph 33 of the judgment are actually perverse. So far as the

charge relating to bringing policemen and interrogating Mr. Bhat is

concerned, the Labour Court has held in paragraph 34 of the impugned

order as under:

34. The cross-examination of the witness clearly shows that the police

had just enquired him about the transfer order and upon that Mr. Bhat

informed said police that her transfer is a routine transfer as per the

administration need and there was no intention whatsoever to harass

her. On hearing that, the policeman left the bank. This shows that apart

from enquiry, there was no any violence or any hot discussion or use of

any abusive language by the police to Mr. Bhat. Moreover, no talking

was took place between Mr. Bhat and the complainant on the point of

her transfer at that time. She kept silence. This behaviour of

complainant does not amount to any kind of misconduct at all as

alleged against her.

18)Thus, absence of ‘violence’ or ‘hot discussion’ or use of ‘abusive

language’ by police with Mr. Bhat is taken into consideration by the

Labour Court for concluding that the act of the Respondent did not

amount to misconduct. These findings are again perverse to the core.

The Bank never alleged misconduct of violence, hot discussion or abusive

language. The allegation against the Respondent was plain and simple.

The act of the Respondent in bringing policemen to Bank’s office to

question her transfer is viewed as misconduct by the Bank and therefore

the simple issue before the Labour Court was whether approaching

police with grievance of transfer and bringing policemen to Bank’s office

and subjecting officer to interrogation amounted to misconduct or not.

Page No. 11 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

Instead of concentrating on this aspect, the Labour Court completely

misdirected itself and has erroneously given clean cheat to the

Respondent only on account of absence of violence and abusive

language.

19)The Industrial Court has exercised its revisional jurisdiction with

material irregularity. It has completely ignored the element of perversity

in the findings of the Labour Court qua the first charge. No discussion is

made by the Industrial Court as to whether the act of the Respondent in

approaching police and bringing policemen to Bank’s office and

subjecting the Bank’s officer to police questioning amounted to

misconduct or not. The Industrial Court has recorded general findings

and has expressed inability to interfere by citing limited jurisdiction

under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act. Therefore, the orders

passed by the Labour and Industrial Courts qua first charge are clearly

illegal and perverse and are liable to be set aside.

20)So far as second allegation of making the complaints to various

authorities are concerned, the Labour Court has recorded following

findings:

35. So far as, the second allegation i.e. by making false, and bogus

complaints to various authorities, namely banking ombudsman, RBI,

Maharashtra State Human Rights Commissions Chief Minister of

Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra and Department of

Agriculture Government of India, the complainant had tarnished the

fare name and reputation of the bank in the eyes of public, the

management has relied upon the documentary evidence produced on

record.

36. I have gone through all these complaints made by the complainant

and observed that these complaints have never been challenged by the

complainant. Neither she cross examined the witness of management

on this point nor adduced any cogent evidence to disprove these

complaints. It is not disputed by her that she had made these

Page No. 12 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

complaints to various authorities against the respondent bank. This

means it is an admitted position that the she had made these

complaints to various authorities against the respondent banks.

However, it is categorically observed that no evidence is available on

record to show that by these complaints, the reputation of respondent

bank has been damaged. In respect of this, the enquiry officer has not

given his findings and whatever findings given by him are without

reasons.. There is no nexus between the charges levelled against the

complainant and the evidence available on the record. No misconduct

was attracted in findings of enquiry officer. Which kind of misconduct

that had been committed by the complainant has nowhere came in his

findings. Mere making complaints to various authorities does not

amount to misconduct. It is further observed that the reply to charge

sheet given by the complainant below exhibit 37 goes unchallenged. No

cross-examination was taken by the respondent bank thereon.

21)Thus, absence of evidence to prove tarnishing of reputation of

Petitioner-Bank is the reason why the Labour Court has held mere

making of complaints to various authorities does not amount to

misconduct. Ms. Joshi has taken me through one of the complaints dated

22 May 2012 addressed by the Respondent to Reserve Bank of India

raising various grievances relating to her own transfer as well as about

functioning of the Bank post merger with Citizens Cooperative Bank Ltd.

The Respondent essentially sought to raise various grievances in respect

of the reimbursements, non-grant of housing loan, rectification entries,

deductions made towards union fees, use of unfair words by seniors

towards her, non-furnishing of documents relating to guarantee, receipt

of salary less than a driver, etc. It appears that after addressing

complaints to various authorities, these authorities called for

explanation from the Petitioner-Bank. Bank’s Ombudsman, Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India, etc. sought responses from the

Petitioner-Bank.

Page No. 13 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

22)Airing service-related grievances within the organisation is a right

of an employee. However, what is done in the present case by the

Respondent is crossing the line by levelling allegations with regard to

functioning of the Bank with various authorities, some of which are

unrelated to banking operations. Whether this would constitute serious

misconduct or not is something, which can be decided while making final

Award. However, it is too farfetched at this juncture to hold that by

addressing those representations and complaints, the Respondent did

not commit any misconduct. If complaints and representations were

restricted to Respondent’s own service-related grievances and if those

were addressed to higher authorities in the Bank, the act would not have

constituted misconduct. However, the Respondent has travelled beyond

the scope of her individual service-related grievances and has also filed

complaints to outside authorities. In somewhat similar circumstances in

Hitachi V/s. Niraj Kadu (supra) this Court has considered the issue as to

whether acts of an employee posting Facebook posts, which were

defamatory in nature amounted to misconduct or not. The Labour Court

had held that the acts committed by the employee had no remote

connection with the working of the Company. This Court disagreed with

the findings of the Labour Court and held in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of

the judgment as under:

13. It is clearly seen that posting of such posts on the Facebook account

and the comments received thereto are clearly an act of inciting hated

and passion against the management. At the outset, it needs to be

stated that the Respondent – workman initially refused to accept that

he had infact posted the two Facebook posts. However, in the evidence

that was produced before the Labour Court, Respondent – workman

failed to produce evidence to the effect that they were not posted by

him. The Respondent – workman failed to produce any evidence to the

effect that his Facebook account was hacked and that he was not the

author of the two Facebook posts. In that background, it was an

Page No. 14 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

admitted position that the aforesaid two Facebook posts were indeed

posted by the Respondent – workman and he therefore could not

escape the liability of having posted these two Facebook posts.

14. Next, it is seen that on the basis of the two Facebook posts posted

by Respondent – workman, hatred and passion was clearly incited

clearly amongst those who have given the likes and comments and one

such comment incited the passion to such an extent that it stated that,

“atleast 2-3 persons from the management should be assaulted with

swords”. Though it has been argued vehemently by Mr. Kulkarni that

despite the two Facebook posts and the provocative comments

received, no untoward incident had occurred and no violent incident

took place resulting in a riotous or disorderly behaviour and therefore

benefit of doubt has to be given to the Respondent – workman,

however evidence on record clearly shows that at the time when the

said Facebook posts were posted the entire situation in the Petitioner -

Company was extremely tense as settlement for wage negotiations

were under progress between the Company and the recognized Union.

Evidence clearly points out to the fact that the entire atmosphere in

the Petitioner - Company was sensitive and agitations were being held

against the Company in different forms because the wage

negotiations / settlement could not be concluded. That there was

complete restlessness amongst the workmen. In such a scenario and

background, the aforesaid two Facebook posts were posted and

therefore considering their natural meaning and the effect of such

posts it can be clearly deduced that it could have led to any disorderly

act. As noted earlier, both the Facebook posts were in Marathi language

and clearly invoked hatred and passion to commit an overt act.

15. In the present case it is seen that, the act committed by Respondent

– workman cannot be dismissed lightly especially in view of the fact

that during the then time the atmosphere in the Petitioner -Company

was extremely sensitive. In fact record indicates that for as many as 20

to 22 months the issue relating to wage revision and settlement with

the recognized Union was pending and under negotiation. Substantial

material has been appended to the Petition beginning from page

No.117 onwards to show and prove this fact. Fast until death was

planned by the President of the recognized Union from 02.04.2017 and

the pamphlet published in that respect is at page No.117 of the

Petition. On page No.119 of the Petition is a post presumably on

Facebook itself, calling upon the employees of the Petitioner -

Company to carry out a two-wheeler rally from the Company’s gate to

Mahalunge. Photographs with respect to the said rally are also placed

on record. Photographs of the morcha carried out by the workmen of

the Petitioner - Company are at page No.122 of Petition. Newspaper

items, articles and publications with respect to the agitations carried

out by the Union are highlighted in the Petition from page Nos.132

onwards.

Page No. 15 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

23)In M.H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries

Development Corpn.

2

the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that any action

of the employee which is detrimental to the interests or prestige of the

employer undermines the discipline within the organsation and affects

efficient functioning thereof. The Court has held thus:

14. In all these cases, this Court has been at pains to point out that

Service Rules can be framed to maintain efficiency and discipline

within the ranks of government servants. In the case of O.K. Ghosh ,

this Court considered such rules as being saved by the “public order”

clause under Article 19(4). In the present case, the restraint is against

doing anything which is detrimental to the interests or prestige of the

employer. The detrimental action may consist of writing a letter or

making a speech. It may consist of holding a violent demonstration or

it may consist of joining a political organisation contrary to the Service

Rules. Any action which is detrimental to the interests or prestige of

the employer clearly undermines discipline within the organisation and

also the efficient functioning of that organisation. Such a rule could be

construed as falling under “public order” clause as envisaged by O.K.

Ghosh[.

24)In the present case, it is difficult to conclude that the act of the

Respondent in addressing complaints to various authorities relating to

functioning of the Bank cannot amount to misconduct particularly in the

light of the fact that the Bank was required to respond to various

authorities. The degree of misconduct and nature of punishment

warranted for the same is an altogether different issue, which can be

considered and decided at the time of final disposal of the complaint. In

every case it is not necessary to prove cause of defamation or tarnishing

of image of the employer. When allegations are levelled by an employee

about functioning of the employer with regulatory and other authorities

and when employer is required to give explanation and defend himself in

2 (1998) 3 SCC 732

Page No. 16 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

respect of those allegations, it cannot be held that the act of employee

would never amount to misconduct. The nature of allegations and the

authorities before whom the same are levelled may determine the gravity

of misconduct. As of now, this Court is not going into the issue of

seriousness of misconduct. Suffice it to observe that the allegations

levelled in the second charge amount to some misconduct on the part of

the Respondent.

25)It cannot be contended that findings recorded by the Enquiry

Officer relating to second charge are based on absolutely no evidence.

The Enquiry Officer has considered evidence before it and has discussed

the evidence available before him in the following manner:

4. So far as to tarnish the fair name and reputation of the Bank in the

eyes of public, the Management has relied up on the documentary

evidence. Management issued Corrigendum to the charge Sheet, which

is at Exh 17 along with copies a complaint before various Authorities.

On the perusal of this Exh 17 is appears that these documents has not

been challenged by the CSE, neither cross examined the MW No 1 on

this point adduce any cogent and reliable evidence and to disprove the

documents. The said witness further deposed that office of Banking

Ombudsman has written letter on 30/04/2012 (Exh 17) regarding

complain made by CSE against Abhyudaya Bank. The said Authority

enclosed copies of the letters of CSE regarding complaints against said

Bank. The said witness further deposed that in the month of October

2012 they have received letter from Ministry of Agriculture,

Government of India regarding complaint filed by CSE. The CSE made

complaints against the Bank to following various authorities

1) Maharashtra State Human Rights commission.

2) Chief Minister of Maharashtra.

3) Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra.

4) Co-operative Minister, Maharashtra State.

5) Police Commissioner, Pune.

6) Labour commissioner, Maharashtra State.

7) RBI Governor- Urban Bank Department.

8) Co-operative commissioner, Maharashtra State.

9) Home Minister, Maharashtra State.

10) Police Commissioner, Navi Mumbai.

11) Jan Lokpal, Maharashtra State.

Page No. 17 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

12) Police Commissioner, Mumbai.

In order to prove this fact Management has relied upon the

documentary evidence (Exh 17 colly). This evidence is not challenged

by the CSE by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. So also there is

no cross examination on this point Hence I am of the opinion that

Management duly established beyond reasonable doubt that CSE has

made complaints against Bank to the various Authority instead of

Competent Authority and tarnish the fair name and reputation of the

bank in the eyes of public. On careful considering evidence of MWNol,

it duly proved that CSE has made false, vexatious and frivolous

complaint CSE has cross examined the said witness but nothing is

coming on the record to disbelieve the said witnesses. On going

through the entire cross examination of the witness nothing is coming

on the record to disbelieve the said witness. This evidence is not

shaken and remained unchallenged. Hence I am of the opinon that

Managemnet has duly proved all the charges mentioned int he charge

sheet beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore I recorded my finding in

the affirmative.

26)In domestic enquiry the test for proof of charge is preponderance

of probability. It is not necessary to prove charges beyond reasonable

doubt. It is not for the Labour or Industrial Courts to comment on quality

or quantity of evidence. So long as there is some evidence on record to

support findings of the Enquiry Officer, Labour and Industrial Courts,

cannot go into aspect of adequacy of evidence. In K uldeep Singh V/s. The

Commissioner of Police and Ors.

3

the Hon’ble Apex Court held in

paragraph 10 as under:

10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the

decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is

arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable

and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be

perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable

and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the

conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would

not be interfered with.

31999 2 SCC 10

Page No. 18 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

27)In State of Haryana and Another V/s. Rattan Singh

4

the Apex

Court has held in paragraph 4 of the judgment as under:

4. It is well settled that in domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated

rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All

materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are

permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has

reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental

authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating

such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking

not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is

not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been

taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides.

The essence of judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous

materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice.

Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or

surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached,

such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good.

However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting

that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and

brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded.

The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based

upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that

extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid

requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there

no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular

court proceedings but in fair commonsense way as men of

understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way,

sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is

beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is

certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an

error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the

evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the Flying Squad, is some evidence

which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent.

Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that

ground.

28)Thus, in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of

Indian Evidence Act do not apply. Any material which is logically

probative for a prudent man can be taken into consideration by the

Enquiry Officer. So long as there is some evidence on record, however

compendious it may be, the same can be relied upon for recording

4 1977 2 SCC 491

Page No. 19 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

finding of guilt. It is only in a case involving total absence of evidence

that a finding can be treated as perverse.

29)In the present case, it is difficult to hold that there is absolutely no

evidence to prove the allegations in the two charges levelled against the

Respondent. The Labour and Industrial Courts have failed to appreciate

well settled principles relating to test of preponderance of probability for

proving charges in the domestic enquiry.

30)Considering the overall conspectus of the case I am of the view

that the Labour and the Industrial Courts have grossly erred in holding

that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The

impugned orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court qua

preliminary issue relating to perversity therefore are unsustainable and

liable to be set aside.

31)However, though the impugned orders of Labour and Industrial

Courts qua the preliminary issue of perversity are being set aside, this

does not mean that the order of punishment will have to be necessarily

upheld. By setting aside the impugned orders, all that is being prevented

is need for the Bank to lead evidence to prove the charges before the

Labour Court. The charges are correctly held to be proved in the enquiry.

The Labour Court would now proceed to determine whether punishment

of dismissal imposed on the Respondent is legal and is proportionate to

the gravity of misconduct committed by her. I have already held that the

allegation in the first charge relating to misbehaviour with Mr. Bhat is

not proved against the Respondent. The Labour Court shall accordingly

go into the issue of proportionality and decide the issue of correctness of

Page No. 20 of 21

18 June 2026

Megha 23_wp_10929_2024_fc.odt

punishment of dismissal uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded by

this Court in the present judgment.

32)Petition accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following

order:

(i)Order passed by the Labour Court on 1 September 2023

as upheld by the Industrial Court by its order dated 11

June 2024 are set aside.

(ii)It is held that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer

(except relating to charge of misbehaviour with Mr. Bhat)

are not perverse and are well supported by evidence on

record.

(iii)The Labour Court shall accordingly proceed to decide

the remaining issues uninfluenced by any of the findings

recorded by this Court in the present judgment.

(iv) Considering the fact that the Complaint is pending since

the year 2014, and that the Respondent is dismissed from

service on 28 January 2015, the Labour Court shall

proceed to decide the remaining issues in an expeditious

manner, preferably within a period of six months.

33)With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is

made absolute. There shall be no orders as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.].

Page No. 21 of 21

18 June 2026