VISHWANATH BHIVAJI KUDALE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an ex-employee of the then Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) has filed this petition challenging the order dtd. 17/4/2004 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Mumbai granting approval to order dtd. 31/7/2001 dismissing him from services.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk with the erstwhile MSEB on 19/7/1977. He was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 31/7/1980. He was posted as Cashier at Padmavati Bill Centre in Pune Urban Circle. He was placed under suspension by order dtd. 22/1/1999 on the ground of commission of serious misconduct. On 4/2/1999, police complaint was lodged with Sahakarnagar Police Station, Pune against the Petitioner alleging misappropriation of amount of Rs.6,23,660.00 by him during the period from 29/4/1998 to 23/12/1998 while accepting cash amounts from consumers. On 19/1/1999, Petitioner gave voluntary statement admitting the delay in depositing of some of the amounts and agreed to refund any amount which was found to be in deficit in a reasonable time. The Petitioner also expressed remorse by admitting the mistakes committed by him. On 21/1/1999, he deposited amount of Rs.20,000.00 with the Respondents and sought further time to deposit the balance amount. In a similar manner, he wrote letters dtd. 28/1/1999 and 3/2/1999 depositing further amounts and showing willingness to deposit the balance amount with the Respondents. His suspension was revoked on 16/10/1999 and he was transferred and posted to another office to work as Upper Division Clerk.

(3.) Petitioner was served with chargesheet under the provisions of Regulation 90 of the Employee Service Regulations, 1995 (Regulations) on 1/6/2001 which was termed as 'concise chargesheet'. It was alleged in the chargesheet that Petitioner committed misappropriation of several amounts while working as a Cashier in Padmavati Bill Payment Centre totally amounting to Rs.5,89,919.00 and penalty of dismissal was proposed. Petitioner was called upon to state as to whether he admitted the charges, whether the proposed penalty of dismissal from service under the provisions of Regulation 90 should be imposed and whether he had any other explanation. Petitioner submitted his reply dtd. 11/6/2001 denying the charges and requested for conduct of enquiry into the charges. After receipt of Petitioner's representation, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass order dtd. 21/7/2001 dismissing the Petitioner from service. According to the Petitioner, at the time of his dismissal, a dispute was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Consolidation Officer, Mumbai and the Chief Industrial Relations Officer had issued Circular dtd. 4/10/1994 directing that under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I. D. Act) conditions of services of the employees were to remain unchanged and while passing an order of discharge or dismissal, provisions of Sec. 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act would follow. Therefore Respondents filed application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer seeking confirmation of the dismissal order under the provisions of Sec. 32(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. Petitioner filed his reply before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 3/11/2001 opposing grant of approval to the dismissal order. The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer granted approval to the dismissal order of the Petitioner on 17/4/2004.