SUNIL VITHALRAO JIKAREversusJANSEVA NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK THROUGH MANAGER

2026:BHC-AUG:43130
                                                1                          45-WP-10070-2018.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                45 WRIT PETITION NO. 10070 OF 2018

                                       Sunil Vithalrao Jikare
                                              VERSUS
                          Janseva Nagari Sahakari Bank Through Manager
                                                 …..
             Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for the Petitioner.
             Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent.
                                                 …..

                                     CORAM          : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                     DATE           : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026

             PER COURT :


             1.        Services of the petitioner, who was working as a peon with the

             respondent – bank, were terminated vide order dated 31.7.2014 on the

             ground of misconduct, namely, sexual harassment of a female co-worker.

             The termination was admittedly effected without holding a disciplinary

             enquiry. However, the respondent – bank led evidence before the learned

             Labour Court in order to prove the misconduct. It appears from the

             judgment passed by the learned Labour Court that the bank had proved

             the complaint filed by the co-employee with the Bank Manager and also

             with the Chairman of the Bank, as also letter of apology and undertaking

             given by the petitioner - complainant. It will be pertaining to state that

             criminal prosecution was also initiated against the petitioner –

             complainant on the same charge, in which he is acquitted. The petitioner


             Kiran Kawre
                                       2                       45-WP-10070-2018.odt


– complainant also entered the witness box in support of his case before

the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court has recorded

findings on the basis of documents produced before it that the

misconduct was duly proved. It is held that the documents, such as the

complaint lodged by the employee against the present petitioner, as also

the letter of apology and undertaking furnished by him, which contain

admission of the misconduct, were duly proved. The complaints made by

the husband and mother-in-law of the employee concerned were also

proved.


2.        In the letter of apology dated 23.8.2011 addressed by complainant

to the Chairman, he has admitted his guilt and has requested for taking a

lenient view of the matter. He has clearly stated that he used to make

frequent calls to the female co-employee and her mother-in-law. He also

admitted to having abused them filthily. Such admission was again made

in the undertaking furnished by him. Although no leniency should have

been          shown,   the   respondent–employer   allowed   the   petitioner–

complainant to resume service after the written undertaking. However,

even thereafter, he continued with the acts of harassment. He would

constantly stalk the female co-worker at the workplace. He continued to

abuse her. He would often follow her on her way back home and also to

the computer coaching classes.




Kiran Kawre
                                     3                        45-WP-10070-2018.odt


3.        Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned Labour Court will

demonstrate that the oral and documentary evidence has been properly

considered by the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court has

recorded findings of fact regarding proof of the misconduct based on the

evidence on record.       Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the

learned Labour Court, the petitioner preferred a revision before the

learned Industrial Court, which also came to be dismissed.


4.        Perusal of the judgment passed by the Industrial Court will also

demonstrate that the learned Industrial Court has taken a broad overview

of the evidence that is produced on record and has also considered the

findings recorded by the learned Labour Court while dismissing the

complaint. The learned Industrial Court has properly discharged its duties

as a revisional Court while dealing with the revision preferred under

Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and

Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The revision has been

rejected by recording proper reasons for concurring with the judgment

delivered by the learned Labour Court.


5.        Perusal of the judgments delivered by both the learned Courts does

not demonstrate any perversity the in appreciation of the material on

record. Although the petitioner–complainant was acquitted in the

criminal case, by now it is well settled that the standard of proof for



Kiran Kawre
                                     4                        45-WP-10070-2018.odt


taking disciplinary action against an employee by the employer and the

standard of evidence required for proving charges in a criminal case are

completely different. Mere acquittal in a criminal case should not

therefore result in setting aside the action of termination of service of the

petitioner.


6.        In view of the reasons recorded above, this Court sees no reason to

interfere with well-reasoned judgments delivered by both the learned

Courts. The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.




                                                     [ ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ]




Kiran Kawre