IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4049 OF 2008 Govind Narayan Patil ..... Petitioner V/s. The Chief Manager, Bank of India, and Anr., ..... Respondents N.C.Walimbe, for the Petitioner. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : JULY 16, 2008. P.C. 1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 24-11-2006, by which the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the reference bearing Reference No.(IT) No.33/2004. 2. While the petitioner was in service, he was subjected to chargesheet dated 12-11-2002 by which four charges were levelled against him in connection with the alleged misconduct. It was alleged against the petitioner that while working at Fergusson Road Branch, he had submitted medical claim on 11-10-1996 for reimbursement of expenses incurred by him for hospitalization of his wife during the period between 13-09-1996 to 20-09-1996. But he had not spent any amount for treatment of his wife namely Geetanjali Patil. It was also alleged against him that while working at the said branch, he had submitted medical claim dated 03-06-1996 of his son Gaurav, for reimbursement of expenses incurred by him. It was also alleged that he had submitted medical claim on 08-01-1996 in connection with the hospitalization of said Gaurav for the treatment between 14-12-1996 to 23-12-1996 and being his dependent, the petitioner was refunded Rs.1154/- against the claim dated 03-06-1996 as well as Rs.2979.90 against the medical claim dated 08-01-1996. It was alleged that the false declaration was made in the medical claim that Mr.Gaurav is his dependent son. It was alleged that he got undue pecuniary gain. It was also alleged against him that while submitting loan application for Rs.1,40,000/- to the Bank of India Staff Co-op. Credit Society, Mumbai, he had with ulterior motive and with a view to making eligible for the said loan, tampered and physically removed remark regarding disciplinary action contemplated against him. On the aforesaid grounds, the chargesheet was served upon the petitioner and thereafter, the inquiry was conducted against him. The Inquiry Officer found that the charges are proved against the petitioner. 3. The Disciplinary Committee accepted the finding of the Inquiry Committee and issued show cause notice to the petitioner regarding the punishment on 08-05-2003 with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary committee found that the misconduct is proved against the petitioner and passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal bearing Reference (IT) No.33/2004. 4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the finding arrived at by the disciplinary committee is correct. The Tribunal found that the misconduct against the petitioner has been proved and after giving opportunity to the petitioner and after considering the evidence on record, upheld the decision of the Management. The Tribunal has considered the question of misconduct on the part of the petitioner in Para No.23 to 25 of the Award. The Tribunal has found that all the three charges against the petitioner are proved regarding over writing in document (Exh.U-30), making false medical claim. It has also been found in Para 25 of the Award that the petitioner had remarried other lady without divorcing the first lady namely Geetanjali Patil. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted the fact that the petitioner had contracted another marriage even when the first wife was alive at the time of second marriage. He further submitted that at the time when the chargesheet was filed, the petitioner had already given divorce to her first wife. 6. It is required to be noted that the first wife of the petitioner 4 gave a complaint to the management. It may be true, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that contracting second marriage may not be treated as a misconduct. However, the Tribunal has rightly found that making a false claim in respect of medical claim is not permissible and the petitioner had made false claim in the name of his first wife at the relevant time. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in Para 25 of the Award. The Industrial Tribunal, in my view, rightly appreciated the evidence on record as the charges in respect of misconduct levelled against the petitioner are proved. This Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence as this Court cannot sit in appeal against the order of the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the penalty awarded to the petitioner is on higher side and since he is having two children and a wife, if the order of the dismissal is confirmed, they may be subjected to starvation. In my view, at the relevant time, when the petitioner was serving with the financial institution and when the charges levelled against him are proved, it cannot be said that the penalty awarded to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. The Industrial Tribunal has also considered this aspect in Para No.33 of the Judgment and found that the penalty awarded to the petitioner cannot be 5 said to be shockingly disproportionate. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in this petition which is required to be corrected by this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed at the admission stage. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )