IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4564 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== GOKALBHAI DEVRAJBHAI TALA (PATEL) Versus RAJKOT NAGARIK SAHKARI BANK LTD. & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 28/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking the following reliefs: “A) Admit this Special Civil Application. B) Allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 1.10.2019 passed by learned Judge Sr.Division, Labour Court No.2, Rajkot in Ref.(LCR) No.27 of 2014 and thereby be pleased to direct respondent bank authorities to quash and set aside the dismissal order passed by bank authorities and be pleased to grant consequential bene.t to the applicant in the interest of p. 1 justice. C) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a sub-sta( at Rajkot with the respondent on 01.11.1995 and his services were subsequently regularized on 01.08.1996. On 24.12.2012, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet as well as show cause notice and he was also given transfer orders on the very same day to be transferred from Rajkot to Surat. Despite the fact that the complainant had withdrawn his complaint, and admitted the fact that he had led a false complaint due to personal issues with the petitioner, the bank passed the transfer order and the petitioner’s services came to be terminated on 24.12.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging the said dismissal which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot being Reference (LCR) No. 27 of 2014 which came to be rejected vide order dated 01.10.2019. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has led the present petition. 4. Heard Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. p. 2 5. Learned counsel Mr. Ghavariya has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the respondent had not incurred any loss on account of the alleged illegality or defalcation and the punishment imposed by the respondent was major in nature and the same is completely disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. He has submitted that since the complainant – Dineshbhai Tilada had withdrawn his complaint, the order passed by the respondent to remove the petitioner is against the settled principles of law and without considering the same the Labour Court has con rmed the order of removal which is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. He has submitted that a departmental inquiry was conducted without following the due procedure thereby, completely violating the principle of natural justice and thus, on the basis of that inquiry, the order of punishment removing the petitioner from services is completely illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The learned counsel Mr. Ghavariya has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Pahwa Vs. Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68366 and urged that the order of punishment of removal from services be substituted with that of compulsory retirement so that the petitioner can get his retiral dues from the respondent. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, p. 3 learned counsel Mr. Ghavariya has urged that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 6. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was serving in respondent-bank as sub-sta( and on 24.12.2012 the respondent issued a chargesheet against the petitioner and consequently an inquiry was conducted. The charges against the petitioner were serious in nature wherein one Dineshbhai Tilada had applied for a loan of Rs. 10,00,000 from the respondent and the same was sanctioned by the respondent. He has submitted that a loan agreement was prepared and a blank cheque bearing the signature of the applicant – Dineshbhai Tilada was obtained for the purpose of security. He has submitted that out of Rs. 10,00,000, Rs. 7,30,000 was credited in the account of Dineshbhai Tilada and remaining Rs. 2,70,000 was misappropriated by the petitioner under some false pretence and, therefore, Dineshbhai Tilada had raised a dispute and led a complaint. He has submitted that the petitioner had also misused Dineshbhai Tilada’s cheque bearing no. 11553 which was deposited in the bank and the petitioner withdrew Rs 9,99,500. Even the installments given to the petitioner for the purpose of repaying the loan were also not deposited by the petitioner in the bank. He has submitted that on the basis of the written complaint received from Dineshbhai Tilada on 18.12.2012, his statement was recorded wherein it was revealed that the petitioner had committed a serious o(ence of p. 4 misappropriation and defalcation and therefore, the bank had lost con dence in the petitioner which led to a departmental inquiry where charges against him were proved and consequently, imposed a punishment which is in proportion to the charges levelled against the petitioner. At the time of removal from services, the petitioner was paid the gratuity amount and other dues for which he was entitled for. He has submitted that the Labour Court, after considering all the facts and perusing the relevant documentary evidences has rightly passed the impugned order dismissing the reference of the petitioner which is in consonance with the settled principles of law and there is no illegality or in rmity in the said order and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6.1 In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr. Patel referred and relied upon the following decisions: (1) Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd) and Others Vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and Others, 2000 (7) SCC 517 (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane, 2005 (3) SCC 254 (3) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, 2008 (1) SCC 115 7. In the case of Janatha Bazar(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs 6, 8 as under: p. 5 “6. As stated above, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in writ appeals con.rmed the .ndings given by the Labour Court that charges against the workmen for breach of trust and misappropriation of funds entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the charge-sheet had been established. After giving the said .ndings, in our view, the Labour Court materially erred in setting aside the order passed by the management removing the workmen from service and reinstating them with 25% back wages. Once an act of misappropriation is proved, maybe for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled-for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled. (Re: Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari.) In U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary this Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a conductor serving with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the ground that the alleged misconduct of the conductor was an attempt to cause loss of Rs 65 to the Corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers for a sum of Rs 2.35 but recovering @ Rs 5.35 per head and also by making entry in the waybill as having received the amount of Rs 2.35, which .gure was subsequently altered to Rs 2.85. The Court held that it was not possible to say that the Corporation removing the conductor from service has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct. Similarly in Punjab Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Kala Singh this Court considered the case of a workman who was working as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner for collecting milk from various centres and was charged for the misconduct that he in@ated the quantum of milk supplies in the milk centres and also in@ated the quality of fat contents where there were less fat contents. The Court held (at SCC pp. 161-62, para 4) that in view of the proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that the management had lost con.dence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under Section 11-A of the ID Act to grant relief with minor penalty. 8. In case of proved misappropriation, in our view, there is no question of considering past record. It is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases, but the p. 6 Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such cases.” 7.1 In the case of Divisional Controller(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs 12, 13 as under: “12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of con.dence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing con.dence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. 13. This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti held in similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not .t to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment.” 7.2 In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs 10, 11 as under: “10. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the respondent had con.ned his case only to the conclusions reached by the enquiry oDcer as well as the quantum of punishment. Therefore, since the respondent had not challenged the correctness, legality or validity of the inquiry conducted, it was not open to the Labour Court to go into the .ndings recorded by the enquiry oDcer regarding the misconduct committed by the respondent. This Court in a number of judgments has held that the punishment of removal/dismissal is the appropriate p. 7 punishment for an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds; and the courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced sympathy for a workman. That, there is nothing wrong in the employer losing con.dence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. That, in such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering. with the quantum of punishment. Without burdening the judgment with all the judgments of this Court on this point, we may only refer to a recent judgment in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh wherein this Court, after taking into account the earlier decisions, held in para 18 as under: (SCC p. 193) “18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of con.dence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing con.dence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct and hence the Labour Court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was suDcient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not .t to be retained as a conductor p. 8 because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in .nancial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum." 11. Respectfully agreeing and following the aforesaid decision of this Court, we accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as the order passed by the Labour Court. Consequently, the order passed by the punishing authority dismissing/removing the respondent from service is restored. No costs.” 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. After considering the facts of the case, the Labour Court has framed the issues in paragraph 8, replied the same in paragraph 9 and discussed the issues and recorded the ndings in detail in paragraph 10 of the impugned order. 8.1 So far as the charges levelled against the petitioner is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, reported in 2006 (7) SCC 212 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs 12,13,14 as under: “12. From the facts collected and the report submitted by the inquiry oDcer, which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority, active connivance of the respondent is eloquent enough to connect the respondent with the issue of TDRs and overdrafts in favour of Bidaye. 13. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the High Court has erred both in law and on facts in interfering with the p. 9 .ndings of the inquiry oDcer, the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority by acting as a court of appeal and reappreciating the evidence. 14. We may now notice a few decisions of this Court in similar circumstances.” 8.2 In the case of Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in 2006 (10) SCC 572 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs 18, 22 as under: “18. It will be noticed that the appellant was charged for the alleged violation of Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations, 1982. Regulation 3(1) reads: "3. (1) Every oDcer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank oDcer." The regulation ensures that every oDcer at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank oDcer. Such regulations are made to instil the public con.dence in the bank so that the interests of customers/depositors are well safeguarded. In such a situation the fact that no amount was lost to the bank would be no ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank oDcer. 22. In the present case the appellant acted beyond his authority in breach of the Bank's regulation. Regulation 3(1) of the Bank's Regulations required that every oDcer of the Bank at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his. duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank oDcer. It is a case of loss of con.dence in the oDcer by p. 10 the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the oDcer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the oDcer in whom the bank has lost con.dence, unless the decision to remove the oDcer is tainted with mala .des, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice to the oDcer is made out. No such case is made out in the present case.” 8.3 In the case of Pradeepkumar Thakur vs State Bank of India reported in 2024 (2) GLH 149 this Court has also considered the scope to interfere with the ndings recorded by the inquiry oDcer and after appreciating the documentary evidences and inquiry report, the penal order was passed by the disciplinary authority and con rmed by the Labour Court which cannot be modi ed or substituted with a lesser penalty unless Court is satis ed that the same is grossly or shockingly disproportionate. In paragraph 6, this Court has considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after considering the same the Court has referred various judgments and ultimately in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 the Court has con rmed the order passed by the authorities. 8.4 In the case of Rajendra G Parikh Vs. Chief General Manager & Anr. dated 12.07.2024, this Court has held from paragraph 7 onwards and ultimately, after relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, this Court has come to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority after perusing and going through materials on record had recorded the ndings and taken the decision to remove the petitioner p. 11 which was con rmed by the Labour Court. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, I am of the opinion that the order of the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law and there is no illegality or any manifest error in the impugned order con rming the order of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 12 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/02/2026 16:58:10