DHRUBA CHARAN PANDABversusTHE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNT OFFICER AND ANR.

                      Sonali Mane                                                    9-IA-911-2024.docx



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 911 OF 2024

                                                             IN

                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 7412 OF 2018


                      Dhruba Charan Pandab                                   … Applicant
                      IN THE MATTER BETWEEN


                      Dhruba Charan Pandab                                   … Petitioner
                               Versus

                      The Deputy Chief Account

                      Officer And Anr.                                       … Respondents



                      Mr. Mahendra Agvekar a/w Mr. C. M. Lokesh, Ms. Shraddha Chavan for
                      Petitioner.
                      Ms. Sonali R. Chavan a/w Ms. Isha Hajare i/b Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar for
                      Respondent No.1.



                                                         CORAM        : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                         DATE         : 1 OCTOBER 2026.

                      P.C. :


                      1)            The Petition challenges Part II Award dated 5 July 2017 passed
                      by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Mumbai answering
                      Reference No. CGIT-1/39/2004 in the negative. The Reference was with
                      regard to dismissal of the Petitioner from service with effect from
                      20 October 2003 as a measure of penalty.
   MANE
   SONALI
   DILIP
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP
Date: 2026.10.05
11:07:05 +0530
                                                      ___Page No.1 of 3___
                                                         1 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                    9-IA-911-2024.docx



2)            I have heard Mr. Agvekar, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner and Ms. Chavan, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondents-Railway Administration.



3)            It appears that Petitioner was engaged as a Bungalow Peon
with Mrs. Rashmi Kapoor, who was Financial Advisor and Chief
Accounts Officer in the Western Railway. His appointment was made in
pursuance of note submitted by the Officer to the General Manager. He
was not a regular employee and was engaged as a Bungalow Peon
merely on recommendation of the Officer concerned. His engagement
was not in a regular capacity, but he was engaged merely as a substitute
on a temporary basis with effect from 17 October 2000. Despite this
position, the Railway Administration acted fairly and issued a
chargesheet dated 29 November 2001 to the Petitioner, alleging
charges of unauthorized absence and non appraisal of telephonic
message received at the residence of the Officer, thereby causing her
embarrassment. Though the charges were proved in the enquiry by
taking into consideration evidence of the Section Officer, the CGIT held
in Part I Award that the enquiry was not fair and proper and that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.



4)            Before the Industrial Tribunal, the Railway Administration led
evidence of the Section Officer, who produced before the Tribunal the
note of the Officer detailing the misconduct alleged against the
Petitioner. Thus, some evidence was produced before the Industrial
Tribunal by the Railway Administration in support of the charges
levelled against the Petitioner. The CGIT has apprised the evidence on
record and has upheld the finding of guilt agaisnt the Petitioner. In the
                                ___Page No.2 of 3___
                                   1 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                     9-IA-911-2024.docx



light of availability of some evidence on record, finding of guilt cannot
be branded as perverse. Even otherwise, the Petitioner did not have any
right to remain in Railway service, since he was engaged on
recommendation made by the Officer at her residence and his
engagement was merely in a temporary capacity. He also rendered
services only from 17 October 2000 till he remained absent from
5 November 2001.



5)            In view of the above position, I find no reason to interfere
with the Part - II Award of the CGIT. The Writ Petition is devoid of
merit, it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no
order as costs.



6)            In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, nothing would
survive in the Interim Application and the same stands disposed of.




                                                      [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                               ___Page No.3 of 3___
                                  1 October, 2026