7.WP4768_2024.DOC Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4768 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1934 OF 2026 Mahendrapratap Kashinath Yadav … Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Municipal Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents _________ Ms. Panthi Desai i/b. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the petitioner. Ms. Pushpa Yadav for the respondent/BMC. Mr. Sunil S. Kamble, Senior Sanitary Inspector present. Mr. Bhura Thau Rotgod, Head Clerk present. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 17 AUGUST, 2026. P.C. 1. These are two proceedings filed by the common petitioner. Writ Petition No. 4768 of 2024 is filed praying for the monetary emoluments, which according to the petitioner, are due and payable. The prayers as made in this petition are required to be noted, which reads thus: “a) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the salary and allowances for the period 17th June, 2020 to 31st December, 2020 along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. b) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the additional allowances for Covid-19 period paid to all the employees of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. c) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the difference in the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension as per VII Pay Commission along with interest at the rate of 18%. d) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be 17 August, 2026 2026:BHC-OS:18669-DB 7.WP4768_2024.DOC issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the balance 25% salary for the period 17 January, 2017 to 16 June, 2020 along with Long Travel Allowance, bonus, annual increment etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. e) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the arrears of salary and allowances as per the VII Pay Commission. f) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner all retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-Mumbai Municipal Corporation by Ms. Lata Mohan Patsupe, Administrative Officer, who has stated that the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 16 March, 2017 with effect from 27 January, 2017, however, he was reinstated in service of the Municipal Corporation on 17 June, 2020 in the wake of Covid pandemic. Such reinstatement was subject to the outcome of departmental inquiry and also a criminal case which was pending against him. It is stated that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and thereafter Departmental Enquiry was conducted. Consequent to the Departmental Enquiry and considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority awarded a punishment to the petitioner vide order dated 4 December, 2024, by which fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on the petitioner to be recovered from the petitioner’s pension in ten equal installments. However, the decision on whether the suspension period be condoned or otherwise, was pending. It is further stated that several emoluments payable to the petitioner are concerned, the Designated Officer informed the Human Resource Department to disburse salary and allowances of the petitioner 17 August, 2026 7.WP4768_2024.DOC from 17 June, 2020 till his superannuation on 31 January, 2021, However, due to some technical error, salary of one month could only be disbursed. It further stated that insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, salary and allowance of the petitioner for the period from 17 June, 2020 to 31 December, 2020 have been paid and the same has been reflected in pension slip of December, 2024. Hence, prayer clause (a) has become infructuous. Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, it is stated that the approved Covid-19 allowances of the petitioner for the period from 17 June, 2020 to 31 December, 2020 have been paid and the same has been reflected in pension slip issued to the petitioner for the month of December, 2024 and accordingly, prayer clause (b) as also become infructuous. Insofar as prayer clause (c) is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has been duly paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Hence, prayer clause (c) also need not be adjudicated. Insofar as prayer clause (e) is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has been paid arrears of salary and allowances as per 7th Pay Commission. Insofar as prayer clause (f) is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has been paid the bonus/ex-gratia of an amount of Rs.16,767/- and the same has been reflected in the pension slip of December, 2024. Also provident fund of Rs.14,06,520/- has been paid and the same has been reflected in pension slip of December, 2024. 4. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the petitioner has not been paid gratuity amount. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, on instructions, submits that the gratuity amount shallll be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today with appropriate statutory interest as may be 17 August, 2026 7.WP4768_2024.DOC payable. 5. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition No. 4768 of 2024 would not warrant any further adjudication and is accordingly disposed of accepting the statement as made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. 6. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 1934 of 2026 is concerned, the challenge in this proceeding is that by the impugned order, the punishment as imposed on the petitioner as a result of Departmental Enquiry, being the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered in ten equal instalments from the petitioner’s pension is illegal. 7. We have perused the record, Enquiry Report as also the impugned order imposing such punishment. We find that the only case as urged on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that as the petitioner has been acquitted by the judgment and order dated 9 January, 2024 rendered by the learned Special Judge in the proceedings of ACB Special Case No. 26 of 2018, the impugned order of penalty would be required to be quashed and set aside. We have perused the judgment as rendered by the Criminal Court. It appears that although there was extensive material on record, however, in view of the contradictory evidence, it is observed by the trial Judge that the prosecution failed to prove acceptance of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner/accused from the complainant. Hence, it could not be proved that the petitioner has voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe on the day of trap. We have also perused the charge sheet which was issued to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and also the impugned order. In our opinion, as the parameters of consideration in departmental proceedings is 17 August, 2026 7.WP4768_2024.DOC preponderance of probabilities, and which is completely different from the parameters which is required for a conviction under the criminal proceedings. Considering this legal requirement, we do not find that there is any infirmity in the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority in imposing the minor punishment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. In fact, such punishment has already been worked out, as the amount is already recovered by the Municipal Corporation. 8. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 9. At this stage, we are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are certain recoveries which was initiated against the petitioner on account of MS-CIT examination. If that be so, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation and if such representation is made within two weeks from today, the same be decided within a period of four weeks thereafter by passing appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open 10. The petition stands dismissed, however, subject to the above limited directions as contained in paragraph 9 (supra). (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 17 August, 2026 Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 18:23:02