1 45-WP-10070-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 45 WRIT PETITION NO. 10070 OF 2018 Sunil Vithalrao Jikare VERSUS Janseva Nagari Sahakari Bank Through Manager ….. Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent. ….. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. Services of the petitioner, who was working as a peon with the respondent – bank, were terminated vide order dated 31.7.2014 on the ground of misconduct, namely, sexual harassment of a female co-worker. The termination was admittedly effected without holding a disciplinary enquiry. However, the respondent – bank led evidence before the learned Labour Court in order to prove the misconduct. It appears from the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court that the bank had proved the complaint filed by the co-employee with the Bank Manager and also with the Chairman of the Bank, as also letter of apology and undertaking given by the petitioner - complainant. It will be pertaining to state that criminal prosecution was also initiated against the petitioner – complainant on the same charge, in which he is acquitted. The petitioner Kiran Kawre 2026:BHC-AUG:43130 2 45-WP-10070-2018.odt – complainant also entered the witness box in support of his case before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court has recorded findings on the basis of documents produced before it that the misconduct was duly proved. It is held that the documents, such as the complaint lodged by the employee against the present petitioner, as also the letter of apology and undertaking furnished by him, which contain admission of the misconduct, were duly proved. The complaints made by the husband and mother-in-law of the employee concerned were also proved. 2. In the letter of apology dated 23.8.2011 addressed by complainant to the Chairman, he has admitted his guilt and has requested for taking a lenient view of the matter. He has clearly stated that he used to make frequent calls to the female co-employee and her mother-in-law. He also admitted to having abused them filthily. Such admission was again made in the undertaking furnished by him. Although no leniency should have been shown, the respondent–employer allowed the petitioner– complainant to resume service after the written undertaking. However, even thereafter, he continued with the acts of harassment. He would constantly stalk the female co-worker at the workplace. He continued to abuse her. He would often follow her on her way back home and also to the computer coaching classes. Kiran Kawre 3 45-WP-10070-2018.odt 3. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned Labour Court will demonstrate that the oral and documentary evidence has been properly considered by the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact regarding proof of the misconduct based on the evidence on record. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Industrial Court, which also came to be dismissed. 4. Perusal of the judgment passed by the Industrial Court will also demonstrate that the learned Industrial Court has taken a broad overview of the evidence that is produced on record and has also considered the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court while dismissing the complaint. The learned Industrial Court has properly discharged its duties as a revisional Court while dealing with the revision preferred under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The revision has been rejected by recording proper reasons for concurring with the judgment delivered by the learned Labour Court. 5. Perusal of the judgments delivered by both the learned Courts does not demonstrate any perversity the in appreciation of the material on record. Although the petitioner–complainant was acquitted in the criminal case, by now it is well settled that the standard of proof for Kiran Kawre 4 45-WP-10070-2018.odt taking disciplinary action against an employee by the employer and the standard of evidence required for proving charges in a criminal case are completely different. Mere acquittal in a criminal case should not therefore result in setting aside the action of termination of service of the petitioner. 6. In view of the reasons recorded above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with well-reasoned judgments delivered by both the learned Courts. The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ] Kiran Kawre