Bombay High Court
MAHENDRAPRATAP KASHINATH YADAVversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THROUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The disciplinary fine of Rs 10,000 imposed on the petitioner is lawful and cannot be set aside merely because of an acquittal in the related criminal case.
Summary
Mahendrapratap Kashinath Yadav, a former employee of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, filed two writ petitions seeking payment of salary, allowances, gratuity and other retirement benefits, and challenging a fine imposed after a departmental enquiry. The corporation contended that most dues had been paid except gratuity, which it promised to pay within four weeks, rendering the first petition moot. The second petition argued that the Rs 10,000 fine was illegal because the petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal case (ACB Special Case No. 26 of 2018). The Court examined the distinction between standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings and held that the disciplinary authority’s fine was valid. Consequently, the first petition was disposed without further adjudication, and the second petition was dismissed, with the fine remaining in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the Municipal Corporation is liable to pay the petitioner’s pending gratuity and other retirement benefits.
- Whether the fine of Rs 10,000 imposed by the disciplinary authority is illegal in view of the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case.
- Whether the standards of proof applicable in departmental proceedings differ from those in criminal trials, affecting the validity of the fine.
Subjects
- suspension
- reinstatement
- salary arrears
- gratuity
- departmental enquiry
- disciplinary fine
- criminal acquittal
- writ of mandamus
- municipal corporation
Judgment
7.WP4768_2024.DOC
2026:BHC-OS:18669-DB
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4768 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1934 OF 2026
Mahendrapratap Kashinath Yadav … Petitioner
Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through
Municipal Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Ms. Panthi Desai i/b. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the petitioner.
Ms. Pushpa Yadav for the respondent/BMC.
Mr. Sunil S. Kamble, Senior Sanitary Inspector present.
Mr. Bhura Thau Rotgod, Head Clerk present.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 17 AUGUST, 2026.
P.C.
1. These are two proceedings filed by the common petitioner. Writ Petition
No. 4768 of 2024 is filed praying for the monetary emoluments, which according
to the petitioner, are due and payable. The prayers as made in this petition are
required to be noted, which reads thus:
“a) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be
issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the
salary and allowances for the period 17 th June, 2020 to 31st December, 2020
along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
b) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be
issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the
additional allowances for Covid-19 period paid to all the employees of the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, along with interest at the rate of
18% p.a.
c) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be
issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the
difference in the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension as per VII
Pay Commission along with interest at the rate of 18%.
d) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be
Page 1 of 5
17 August, 2026
7.WP4768_2024.DOC
issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the
balance 25% salary for the period 17 January, 2017 to 16 June, 2020 along
with Long Travel Allowance, bonus, annual increment etc. along with interest
at the rate of 18% p.a.
e) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be
issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the
arrears of salary and allowances as per the VII Pay Commission.
f) That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be
issued, ordering and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner all
retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. along with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a.”
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-Mumbai
Municipal Corporation by Ms. Lata Mohan Patsupe, Administrative Officer, who
has stated that the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 16 March, 2017
with effect from 27 January, 2017, however, he was reinstated in service of the
Municipal Corporation on 17 June, 2020 in the wake of Covid pandemic. Such
reinstatement was subject to the outcome of departmental inquiry and also a
criminal case which was pending against him. It is stated that the charge sheet
was issued to the petitioner and thereafter Departmental Enquiry was conducted.
Consequent to the Departmental Enquiry and considering the report of the
Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority awarded a punishment to the
petitioner vide order dated 4 December, 2024, by which fine of Rs.10,000/- was
imposed on the petitioner to be recovered from the petitioner’s pension in ten
equal installments. However, the decision on whether the suspension period be
condoned or otherwise, was pending. It is further stated that several emoluments
payable to the petitioner are concerned, the Designated Officer informed the
Human Resource Department to disburse salary and allowances of the petitioner
Page 2 of 5
17 August, 2026
7.WP4768_2024.DOC
from 17 June, 2020 till his superannuation on 31 January, 2021, However, due to
some technical error, salary of one month could only be disbursed. It further
stated that insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, salary and allowance of the
petitioner for the period from 17 June, 2020 to 31 December, 2020 have been
paid and the same has been reflected in pension slip of December, 2024. Hence,
prayer clause (a) has become infructuous. Insofar as prayer clause (b) is
concerned, it is stated that the approved Covid-19 allowances of the petitioner for
the period from 17 June, 2020 to 31 December, 2020 have been paid and the
same has been reflected in pension slip issued to the petitioner for the month of
December, 2024 and accordingly, prayer clause (b) as also become infructuous.
Insofar as prayer clause (c) is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has been
duly paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Hence, prayer
clause (c) also need not be adjudicated. Insofar as prayer clause (e) is concerned,
it is stated that the petitioner has been paid arrears of salary and allowances as per
7th Pay Commission. Insofar as prayer clause (f) is concerned, it is stated that the
petitioner has been paid the bonus/ex-gratia of an amount of Rs.16,767/- and the
same has been reflected in the pension slip of December, 2024. Also provident
fund of Rs.14,06,520/- has been paid and the same has been reflected in pension
slip of December, 2024.
4. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the petitioner has not
been paid gratuity amount. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation,
on instructions, submits that the gratuity amount shallll be paid to the petitioner
within four weeks from today with appropriate statutory interest as may be
Page 3 of 5
17 August, 2026
7.WP4768_2024.DOC
payable.
5. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition No. 4768 of 2024 would not
warrant any further adjudication and is accordingly disposed of accepting the
statement as made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation.
6. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 1934 of 2026 is concerned, the challenge in
this proceeding is that by the impugned order, the punishment as imposed on the
petitioner as a result of Departmental Enquiry, being the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-
to be recovered in ten equal instalments from the petitioner’s pension is illegal.
7. We have perused the record, Enquiry Report as also the impugned order
imposing such punishment. We find that the only case as urged on behalf of the
petitioner is to the effect that as the petitioner has been acquitted by the judgment
and order dated 9 January, 2024 rendered by the learned Special Judge in the
proceedings of ACB Special Case No. 26 of 2018, the impugned order of penalty
would be required to be quashed and set aside. We have perused the judgment as
rendered by the Criminal Court. It appears that although there was extensive
material on record, however, in view of the contradictory evidence, it is observed
by the trial Judge that the prosecution failed to prove acceptance of Rs.50,000/-
by the petitioner/accused from the complainant. Hence, it could not be proved
that the petitioner has voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe on the
day of trap. We have also perused the charge sheet which was issued to the
petitioner in the departmental proceedings and also the impugned order. In our
opinion, as the parameters of consideration in departmental proceedings is
Page 4 of 5
17 August, 2026
7.WP4768_2024.DOC
preponderance of probabilities, and which is completely different from the
parameters which is required for a conviction under the criminal proceedings.
Considering this legal requirement, we do not find that there is any infirmity in
the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority in imposing the minor punishment
of fine of Rs.10,000/-. In fact, such punishment has already been worked out, as
the amount is already recovered by the Municipal Corporation.
8. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. It
is accordingly dismissed.
9. At this stage, we are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there are certain recoveries which was initiated against the petitioner on account
of MS-CIT examination. If that be so, the petitioner is at liberty to make a
representation and if such representation is made within two weeks from today,
the same be decided within a period of four weeks thereafter by passing
appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All
contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open
10. The petition stands dismissed, however, subject to the above limited
directions as contained in paragraph 9 (supra).
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Page 5 of 5
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 17 August, 2026
Date: 20/08/2026 18:23:02
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.