Bombay High Court
PRAMOD CHANDRAKANT MUNDHEversusThe Transport Manager
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that recovery of excess salary and suspension are not punishments, so they do not bar the employer from issuing a new show‑cause notice and imposing further penalty.
Summary
The petitioners challenged orders of the Industrial Court, Thane, which upheld show‑cause notices issued by their employer for imposing further penalties after they had already been subjected to two prior disciplinary actions. They argued that the earlier recovery of excess salary and their suspension constituted punishments, thereby barring any additional penalty for the same alleged misconduct under the principle of double punishment. The Court examined whether recovery of overpaid wages and temporary suspension amount to penalties within the meaning of the industrial relations rules. It held that salary recovery is a restitution measure, not a punitive penalty, and that suspension is a temporary measure to facilitate inquiry, not a punishment. Consequently, the earlier actions do not preclude the employer from conducting a fresh disciplinary enquiry and imposing a new penalty. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed, with the petitioners directed to challenge the new punishments in the appropriate forum.
Issues considered
- Whether the recovery of excess salary drawn by employees constitutes a penalty that bars further disciplinary action.
- Whether suspension of employees amounts to punishment that prevents a subsequent disciplinary enquiry.
- Whether the employer can issue a show‑cause notice for a third penalty when the employee has already faced two prior disciplinary measures for the same alleged act.
Subjects
- unfair labour practice
- penalty
- double punishment
- disciplinary enquiry
- show cause notice
- suspension
- salary recovery
- industrial court
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 7-WP-11840-2026 & GROUP.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11840 OF 2026
Pramod Chandrakant Mundhe …..Petitioner
: Versus :
The Transport Manager & Ors. ….Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2026
Rajendra Ramchandra Ghodvinde …..Petitioner
: Versus :
The Transport Manager & Ors. ….Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 11845 OF 2026
Jitendra Laxman Govekar …..Petitioner
: Versus :
The Transport Manager & Ors. ….Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 11846 OF 2026
Jaywant Shrirang Chavan …..Petitioner
: Versus :
The Transport Manager & Ors. ….Respondents
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 1 of 4
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 7-WP-11840-2026 & GROUP.docx
WRIT PETITION NO. 11849 OF 2026
Dinesh Keshav Choudhari …..Petitioner
: Versus :
The Transport Manager & Ors. ….Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 11842 OF 2026
Ranjit Sambhaji Nimbalkar …..Petitioner
: Versus :
The Transport Manager & Ors. ….Respondents
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Mr. Sachin Hande, Mr. Samadhan Kashid and
Ms. Poonam Pal i/b. Lexfort Associates, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sandesh Deshpande with Ms. Janhavi Chaudhari, Ms. Priti karande,
for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C :
1) These Petitions challenge the judgment and orders passed by
the Industrial Court, Thane in complaints of unfair labour practice filed
by the Petitioners challenging the show cause notices issued to them for
imposition of penalties. The show cause notices were issued after the
Petitioners were found guilty in departmental enquiries and before
imposition of penalties on them. The Industrial Court has refused to set
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 2 of 4
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 7-WP-11840-2026 & GROUP.docx
aside the show cause notices by the impugned judgments and orders
dated 18 July2026.
2) I have heard Mr. Naphade, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners and Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and considered the submissions canvassed them.
3) It is the contention of the Petitioners that they have already
been punished twice for the same alleged delinquent acts and that by the
impugned show cause notices, third penalty was proposed to be imposed.
The first act of the Respondent-employer which is perceived as a penalty
by the Petitioners is an order for recovery of excess salaries drawn by
them. It was the allegation against the Petitioners that despite being on
leave, they drew wages from the Respondent-employer. Accordingly, by
passing various orders, Petitioners were directed to return/refund the
excess payment of salaries received by them. This does not amount to
imposition of penalty. Though recovery of loss caused to the employer
may be one of the enumerated penalties under the Rules, mere demand of
amount of loss does not ipso-facto amount to imposition of penalty.
However, if enquiry is conducted and after the charge is proved,
punishment of recovery is imposed, the same would constitute a penalty
debarring the employer from once again punishing the employee for the
same act. Further, mere issuance of a letter or passing of an order
demanding excess amount of salary from the employee does not ipso-
facto tantamount to a punishment thereby constituting a bar for conduct
of departmental enquiry and punishing the employee. It is another matter
that Petitioners have not acted in terms of the requisition for refund of
excess salary drawn. They challenged even the demands for refund by
filing separate complaints of unfair labour practices. However, even if
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 3 of 4
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 7-WP-11840-2026 & GROUP.docx
the excess salary was to be refunded, the same does not preclude the
employer from punishing the employee for the delinquent act. Recovery
of the lost/misappropriated amount is a concept different and distinct
from the concept of maintaining discipline amongst the workers by
punishing the errant employee.
4) The second act of the employer which is perceived by the
Petitioners as a punishment is the orders suspending them. Mere
suspension does not amount to punishment. Fresh orders of suspension
cannot come in the way of the employer conducting departmental
enquiry and punishing the employees. Suspension is a mere temporary
measure to keep the delinquent employee away from duties during the
course of conduct of enquiry. Therefore, suspension of the Petitioners is
neither a punishment nor a bar on conduct of disciplinary inquiry and
imposition of punishment.
5) Therefore, the contention sought to be raised on behalf of
the Petitioners that they have been punished earlier on two occasions
does not hold any water and deserves outright rejection.
6) I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the impugned
orders. Now punishments are imposed on the Petitioners by orders dated
30 July 2026. They can challenge the same before the appropriate
forum. Writ Petitions are disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 4 of 4
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Checking your session…