Neeta Sawant 7-WP-11840-2026 & GROUP.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11840 OF 2026 Pramod Chandrakant Mundhe ..Petitioner … : Versus : The Transport Manager & Ors. .Respondents … WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2026 Rajendra Ramchandra Ghodvinde ..Petitioner … : Versus : The Transport Manager & Ors. .Respondents … WRIT PETITION NO. 11845 OF 2026 Jitendra Laxman Govekar ..Petitioner … : Versus : The Transport Manager & Ors. .Respondents … WRIT PETITION NO. 11846 OF 2026 Jaywant Shrirang Chavan ..Petitioner … : Versus : The Transport Manager & Ors. .Respondents … _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 1 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 7-WP-11840-2026 & GROUP.docx WRIT PETITION NO. 11849 OF 2026 Dinesh Keshav Choudhari ..Petitioner … : Versus : The Transport Manager & Ors. .Respondents … WRIT PETITION NO. 11842 OF 2026 Ranjit Sambhaji Nimbalkar ..Petitioner … : Versus : The Transport Manager & Ors. .Respondents … Mr. Aseem Naphade a w. Mr. Sachin Hande, Mr. Samadhan Kashid and / Ms. Poonam Pal i b. Lexfort Associates, / for the Petitioners. Mr. Sandesh Deshpande with Ms. Janhavi Chaudhari, Ms. Priti karande, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C : 1) These Petitions challenge the judgment and orders passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in complaints of unfair labour practice filed by the Petitioners challenging the show cause notices issued to them for imposition of penalties. The show cause notices were issued after the Petitioners were found guilty in departmental enquiries and before imposition of penalties on them. The Industrial Court has refused to set _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 2 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 7-WP-11840-2026 & GROUP.docx aside the show cause notices by the impugned judgments and orders dated 18 July2026. 2) I have heard Mr. Naphade, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and considered the submissions canvassed them. 3) It is the contention of the Petitioners that they have already been punished twice for the same alleged delinquent acts and that by the impugned show cause notices, third penalty was proposed to be imposed. The first act of the Respondent-employer which is perceived as a penalty by the Petitioners is an order for recovery of excess salaries drawn by them. It was the allegation against the Petitioners that despite being on leave, they drew wages from the Respondent-employer. Accordingly, by passing various orders, Petitioners were directed to return refund the / excess payment of salaries received by them. This does not amount to imposition of penalty. Though recovery of loss caused to the employer may be one of the enumerated penalties under the Rules, mere demand of amount of loss does not ipso-facto amount to imposition of penalty. However, if enquiry is conducted and after the charge is proved, punishment of recovery is imposed, the same would constitute a penalty debarring the employer from once again punishing the employee for the same act. Further, mere issuance of a letter or passing of an order demanding excess amount of salary from the employee does not ipso- facto tantamount to a punishment thereby constituting a bar for conduct of departmental enquiry and punishing the employee. It is another matter that Petitioners have not acted in terms of the requisition for refund of excess salary drawn. They challenged even the demands for refund by filing separate complaints of unfair labour practices. However, even if _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 3 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 7-WP-11840-2026 & GROUP.docx the excess salary was to be refunded, the same does not preclude the employer from punishing the employee for the delinquent act. Recovery of the lost misappropriated amount is a concept different and distinct / from the concept of maintaining discipline amongst the workers by punishing the errant employee. 4) The second act of the employer which is perceived by the Petitioners as a punishment is the orders suspending them. Mere suspension does not amount to punishment. Fresh orders of suspension cannot come in the way of the employer conducting departmental enquiry and punishing the employees. Suspension is a mere temporary measure to keep the delinquent employee away from duties during the course of conduct of enquiry. Therefore, suspension of the Petitioners is neither a punishment nor a bar on conduct of disciplinary inquiry and imposition of punishment. 5) Therefore, the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the Petitioners that they have been punished earlier on two occasions does not hold any water and deserves outright rejection. 6) I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. Now punishments are imposed on the Petitioners by orders dated 30 July 2026. They can challenge the same before the appropriate forum. Writ Petitions are disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 4 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026