Bombay HC: admission in reply to a chargesheet is enough to prove misconduct

The Bombay High Court set aside an Industrial Court order that had quashed disciplinary action against a Thane Municipal Corporation clerk who admitted misappropriating Rs 2,77,116 collected towards water bills over three months in 2004. The employee had admitted the lapses in his reply to the chargesheet, refunded the amount and sought leniency, after which the Corporation proposed only reversion to a lower post. He then approached the Industrial Tribunal, which held that an admission made in a chargesheet reply was not enough without a formally recorded plea of guilt, and set aside the show-cause notice as an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. He retired from service in 2021 while the matter was still pending.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that a clear, unequivocal admission of the charges in a written reply to a chargesheet is by itself sufficient proof of misconduct, and that formal recording of a plea of guilt is not a separate legal requirement. The Court also held that retirement during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot let an employee escape the consequences of proved misconduct. It restored the proposed punishment of reversion for three years, effective from the chargesheet, directed a notional pay refixation for pension purposes without recovering past salary already paid, and ordered release of the employee's withheld gratuity within six weeks.