Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal of Employee Contesting Election Without Permission. Regulation 48B of Bombay State Transport Employees Services Regulations Requires Prior Permission; Dismissal Upheld for Wilful Disobedience.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 18
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Umesh Kalyanrao Galande, was a helper employed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. He applied for permission to contest elections to the Municipal Council, Akot, scheduled for 24.11.1991, on 25.10.1991. The last date for withdrawal of nomination was 11.11.1991. On 22.11.1991, the employer refused permission. Despite the refusal, the appellant contested the election and lost. He was served with a chargesheet on 11.11.1993 alleging gross insubordination and wilful disobedience of a lawful order. After a disciplinary inquiry, he was dismissed from service. The appellant challenged the dismissal in a writ petition, which was dismissed. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the sole contention was that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. The court noted that Regulation 48B required prior permission to contest elections, and the appellant had not obtained it. The court held that the punishment was not disproportionate, as the appellant had ample opportunity to withdraw his candidature after the refusal but chose not to. The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Misconduct - Contesting Election Without Permission - Regulation 48B of Bombay State Transport Employees Services Regulations - The appellant, a helper with the respondent Corporation, contested municipal council elections without obtaining prior permission as required under Regulation 48B. The employer refused permission after the last date of withdrawal of nomination. The appellant contested and lost both the election and his employment. The court held that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate given the clear violation of regulations and the appellant's failure to withdraw after refusal. (Paras 2-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the punishment of dismissal for contesting an election without permission is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The punishment of dismissal is upheld.

Law Points

  • Proportionality of punishment
  • misconduct of contesting election without permission
  • Regulation 48B of Bombay State Transport Employees Services Regulations
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 234

Letters Patent Appeal No. 266 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1816 of 2008

2017-07-06

B.P. Dharmadhikari, Rohit B. Deo

B.M. Khan for appellant, V.G. Wankhede for respondent

Umesh Kalyanrao Galande

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal from service for contesting election without permission.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the punishment of dismissal as disproportionate.

Filing Reason

Appellant contested municipal council election without employer's permission, leading to dismissal.

Previous Decisions

Writ Petition No. 1816 of 2008 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

Issues

Whether the punishment of dismissal for contesting election without permission is shockingly disproportionate.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of contesting election without permission.

Ratio Decidendi

The punishment of dismissal for contesting an election without permission under Regulation 48B is not disproportionate, as the employee had the opportunity to withdraw after refusal but did not.

Judgment Excerpts

Only contention in this appeal which Shri Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant, urges is that the punishment of dismissal imposed for proved misconduct of contesting of election without permission of the employer is so shockingly disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court.

Procedural History

The appellant was dismissed from service after a disciplinary inquiry. He filed Writ Petition No. 1816 of 2008, which was dismissed. He then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 266 of 2008.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay State Transport Employees Services Regulations: Regulation 48B
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal of Employee Contesting Election Without Permission. Regulation 48B of Bombay State Transport Employees Services Regulations Requires Prior Permission; Dismissal Upheld for Wilful Disobedience.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Scrutiny Committee Order Invalidating Scheduled Tribe Certificate for 'Mana' Caste — Committee Failed to Consider Consistent Documentary Evidence and Prior Validity Certificates of Blood Relatives.