wp 1035-2011.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1035 OF 2011 1. Suresh Bhimraoji Ingale, Aged about 44 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. Jawahar Nagar, Amravati … PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati 2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dharni, District : Amravati. 3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Chandur Bazar, Distt. Amravati. 4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samittee, Dhamangaon Railway, Distt. Amravati. … RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Shri NR. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , JJ.. DATE D : 09.10.2026 2026:BHC-NAG:13636 wp 1035-2011.odt 2 JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner-employee approached this Court to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint (ULP) No.72 of 2007, decided on 30.09.2010. 3. In the present petition, the controversy between the parties can be summarized as under: The petitioner-employee was working as a Gram Sevak during the period from April 1991 to 01.08.2000 at Panchayat Samiti, Dharni. Then he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Chandur Bazar. At Chandur Bazar, he has also rendered the service as a Gram Sevak for a period from 01.08.2000 to 09.05.2007. 4. The respondent had issued a charge-sheet to the wp 1035-2011.odt 3 present applicant alleging that unauthorised absence on duty, misappropriation of Government fund, misconduct, and absence at headquarters while he was working at Panchayat Samiti, Dharni and Panchayat Samiti, Chandur Bazar. 5. In pursuance of the said charge-sheet, the inquiry was conducted against him and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. On the basis of said report, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, on 28.05.2007, imposed following penalty against the petitioner: (i) Two yearly increments, by giving effect to the same on the future salary as a Gram Sevak, are permanently stopped. (ii) Recovery of amount of misappropriation of Rs.2,79,533/- from monthly salary at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month along with interest at the rate of 6.40% per annum from the date of misappropriation. (iii) Period of suspension shall be treated as a suspension period. wp 1035-2011.odt 4 6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order of the respondents, challenged the same before the Industrial Court by Complaint (ULP) No.72 of 2007. In the complaint, the petitioner has contented various grounds and more importantly raised ground that inquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, principles of natural justice are violated, and the charges which are leveled against him are not proved before the Inquiry Officer. 7. The learned Industrial Court, by order dated 16.03.2009, by considering the submission of the petitioner that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice and inquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, granted stay to the impugned order of punishment imposed by respondent-Zilla Parishad. 8. The order of the Industrial Court dated 16.03.2009 was challenged by the respondent-Zilla Parishad before this Court in Writ Petition No.3070 of 2009. This Court has specifically wp 1035-2011.odt 5 observed that the finding recorded by the Industrial Court would prejudice the case of the respondent-Zilla Parishad when the issue regarding the fairness of departmental inquiry will be looked into by the Industrial Court. But at the same time, by considering the fact that the petitioner was not granted fair opportunity in the inquiry proceeding, more particularly of denying opportunity of cross-examination through a legally trained person, this Court did not interfere in the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 16.03.2009. However, it was made clear that any finding recorded therein shall not weigh with the Industrial Court while evaluating the issue of fairness of departmental inquiry. This Court further made it clear that parties are at liberty to lead evidence before the Industrial Court on this issue and question will be decided independently on its own merits without getting influenced by the order dated 16.03.2009. 9. In view of this order, the Industrial Court was expected to frame the preliminary issue as to whether the inquiry, wp 1035-2011.odt 6 on the basis of which the punishment has been imposed against the petitioner, was conducted fairly and properly in the matter or not and thereafter would have permitted the parties to lead evidence before the Court. However, the record shows that without following this procedure, the Industrial Court has permitted the petitioner-employee to lead his evidence before the Industrial Court and permitted the respondent to cross-examine him. 10. The respondent Zilla Parishad did not enter into the witness box in support of their submission before the Industrial Court. As such, only on the basis of evidence of petitioner, Industrial Court decided the complaint by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 and by upholding the impugned order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 11. In the light of this factual position, the petitioner approached before this Court by way of present writ petition. wp 1035-2011.odt 7 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly made a submission before this Court that in any inquiry proceeding, which are under challenge either before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, before leading evidence of the parties, it would be necessary to frame the preliminary issue by the Industrial Court as to whether Departmental Enquiry was conducted in fair and legal manner and if the Industrial Court reached to the conclusion that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair and legal manner, or in violation of principles of natural justice, then the employer can be given the opportunity to lead evidence before the Court and on the basis of such evidence can conclude the proceeding. However, as the said issue is not framed by the learned Industrial Court in the matter, according to petitioner, there is a manifest error committed by Industrial Court and same is apparent on the record and this issue needs consideration in the matter. 13. It would be relevant to note that the Industrial Court has granted the interim relief mainly by relying upon the fact wp 1035-2011.odt 8 that by violating the principles of natural justice, the inquiry was held and thereby, since year 2009, the interim protection granted in favour of petitioner. So also, this Court, while confirming the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 16.03.2009, has observed in concluding paragraphs as under: “In view of these findings, I am not inclined to interfere with the order as passed below Exh. 2. However, it is made clear that any finding recorded therein shall not weigh with the Industrial Court while evaluating the issue of fairness of departmental enquiry. The parties are at liberty to lead evidence before the Industrial Court on said issue and that question will be decided independently on its own merit without getting influenced by the impugned order dated 16th March 2009. As the complaint is of the year 2007, it is expedited and the Industrial Court is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31st August 2010.” 14. On bare perusal of the finding of this Court, it is clear that this Court is of the opinion that the issue about the fairness of the departmental inquiry was required to be decided first and the Industrial Court would likely to decide the same, has observed that without getting influenced by the order dated 16.03.2009, the said issue shall be decided by the Industrial wp 1035-2011.odt 9 Court. But surprisingly, the preliminary issue was not framed and directly the Industrial Court has decided the complaint by impugned judgment dated 30.09.2010. 15. It would be relevant to note that learned Industrial Court has framed following issues in the matter: Sr. No. Issues Findings 1. Does the complainant prove that the respondents have indulged in an unfair labour practice with him under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act? No. 2. Whether the respondents prove that the complainant has misappropriated a huge amount of Rs. 2,79,633/-? Yes. 3. Whether the impugned order dated 28-05-2007, in respect of recovery of Rs. 2,79,533/- is sustainable? Yes. 4. Is complainant entitled to up-to-date salary? No. 5. Whether the order of barring of two increments of the complainant and treating his period of suspension beyond six months as punishment is legal? Yes. 6. Is the complainant entitled to get back the amount already recovered by respondent from him? No. 7. What order? As per final order. Undisputedly only petitioner entered into witness box to support the submission made in his complaint. No one entered into witness box on behalf of respondent-Zilla Parishad. It is seen that respondent-Zilla Parishad relied upon the enquiry report and wp 1035-2011.odt 10 proceedings. 16. In the present matter, because of granting permission to the petitioner to lead evidence before the industrial Court, the Industrial Court was having two set of evidence while deciding the matter. The first set of facts which is recorded in the domestic inquiry against the petitioner, and second, the evidence which petitioner has brought on record. Therefore, in this contingency, it was necessary for the Industrial Court to record specific finding as to which evidence is to be relied upon while deciding the complaint on merits. But, no such efforts were taken by the Industrial Court and by considering both the evidence has decided the complaint. 17. In my considered opinion, this approach of the Industrial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law. It would be relevant to refer the one of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, reported in 1999(1) SCC 517, wp 1035-2011.odt 11 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in the cases where inquiry has been held and found to be defective, then the Court has to first call upon the Management or the employer to justify action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence that the termination or dismissal order was proper. If employer did not lead evidence or not avail the opportunity, then it cannot raise any ground at any subsequent stage that they have not been given opportunity while passing the award in favour of the employee. The gist of this judgment is that in an inquiry proceeding, the Tribunal has to first reach to the conclusion as there was a fair and proper inquiry was conducted or not, and if it reach to the conclusion that inquiry was properly and fairly conducted, then the Tribunal can further frame the issue whether the punishment imposed against the employee is proportionate to the allegations which are leveled against him or not, and then proceed to decide the complaint in the matter. But in the present case, this entire efforts are not taken by the Industrial Court while deciding the complaint. wp 1035-2011.odt 12 18. The petitioner also vehemently argued that issue of the suspension was also not properly dealt with by the Industrial Court. He has specifically relied upon the Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules 1981. According to the petitioner, the competent authority while imposing such punishment is required to consider as to whether the suspension was justified or not and if not, what would be the pay and allowances that employee would be entitled for the period of suspension. It is stated that unless such determination is done in accordance with the law, the confirmation of penalty that period of suspension is to be treated as suspension period is not justified. It is further the case of the petitioner that his suspension period was more than 90 days and, i.e. near about 4 years in the present matter, and therefore, Rule 72 of the Rules 1981 being relevant in the present matter, was required to be dealt with by the Industrial Court. But this aspect is also not considered. wp 1035-2011.odt 13 19. Petitioner stated that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, it is held that suspension order should not be extended beyond a period of three months. If within the period of three months, the charge-sheet has been served on the delinquent employee, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. However, in the present case, there are no such reasons recorded by the respondent Zilla Parishad, but this aspect was not considered by the Industrial Court, though specifically raised by him in the matter. 20. The learned Counsel for the respondent Zilla Parishad, however, stated that it is a case of open and shut, because the inquiry officer, by granting hearing opportunity to the petitioner, has conducted the inquiry proceeding. The delay is caused in conducting the departmental inquiry was due to the petitioner himself, as he has not responded time to time before to wp 1035-2011.odt 14 the inquiry proceeding. He further stated that considering the charges which are leveled against the petitioner and the punishment imposed against him is proportionate to the charges leveled against him in the matter, and hence, there is no need of any interference of this Court in the matter. 21. It is pointed out that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2024 and the respondent Zilla Parishad, by order dated 13.02.2026, only by withholding the amount of misappropriation, and by treating the period during the suspension as a suspension period, has released his pensionary benefits in the matter. Therefore, looking to this aspect, it is not a fit case of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court in the matter. 22. In the present case, in my considered opinion, the Industrial Court has committed an error while deciding the complaint. The learned Industrial Court on the ground that there is a no fair and proper inquiry conducted by the respondent Zilla wp 1035-2011.odt 15 Parishad has granted the stay, and this Court has confirmed the said order with an impression that the issue of fairness of departmental inquiry would be framed, and accordingly, the Industrial Court will proceed in the matter. But Industrial Court did not take the recourse which is mandatory as per the settled principles of law, and directly proceeded to decide the case without framing such preliminary issue. Hence, the manner in which the Industrial Court decided the proceeding is contrary to the settled principles of law. 23. In the present case, the Industrial Court while deciding the rival submission, has relied upon the evidence which petitioner has led before the Tribunal and also relied upon the inquiry report and inquiry proceeding, which is not permissible as per the settled principles of law. The Tribunal ought to have first recorded a finding whether the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner or not, and then only could have relied upon the inquiry proceeding. But in the present case, the learned Tribunal without following this well-established procedure of law, wp 1035-2011.odt 16 decided the proceeding. Hence, the manner in which the learned Industrial Court has decided the proceeding is not permissible under the settled principles of law. 24. In light of the above, and most importantly, the petitioner has been attained the age of superannuation in the year 2024, and his pensionary benefits has been released by withholding amount of misappropriation which remained to be recovered from him and suspension period is treated as suspension period while releasing him pensionary benefits, same needs to be reconsidered by Industrial Court by granting equal opportunity to both the parties in the matter. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed. ii) The judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by Industrial Court, Amravati in Complaint (ULP) No.72 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The proceeding bearing Complaint (ULP) No.72 of 2007 is wp 1035-2011.odt 17 restored on the file of the Member, Industrial Court, Amravati. iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Court on 26.10.2026. v) The Industrial Court is directed to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him, in light of the observation made above. vi) All the issues raised in the petition are kept open. vii) Both parties are directed to cooperate with Industrial Court to decide the complaint within stipulated time period. 25. The Writ petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL J.) R.S. Sahare Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 18:07:47