GOKALBHAI DEVRAJBHAI TALA (PATEL)versusRAJKOT NAGARIK SAHKARI BANK LTD.

     C/SCA/4564/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




              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


                                   Page 1 of 12
     C/SCA/4564/2020                          JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




        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.



                               Page 2 of 12
     C/SCA/4564/2020                        JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




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,


                             Page 3 of 12
     C/SCA/4564/2020                        JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




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


                             Page 4 of 12
      C/SCA/4564/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




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:



                                  Page 5 of 12
C/SCA/4564/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




   “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


                           Page 6 of 12
      C/SCA/4564/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




         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


                                    Page 7 of 12
C/SCA/4564/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




   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


                              Page 8 of 12
      C/SCA/4564/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




                 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


                                   Page 9 of 12
      C/SCA/4564/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




         .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


                                   Page 10 of 12
      C/SCA/4564/2020                             JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




         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


                                 Page 11 of 12
     C/SCA/4564/2020                                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




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


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




                                             Page 12 of 12