Pune: In a significant judgment balancing workplace discipline with fairness, the Bombay High Court has ruled that dismissing a Pune worker over an inflated transport allowance claim was “shockingly disproportionate,” bringing a legal battle that stretched for nearly 13 years to a close.
The Court refused to order reinstatement but directed Grupo Antolin Pune Pvt. Ltd. to pay ₹8 lakh as lump-sum compensation to former employee Ananta Rajaram Walunj (42), a resident of Nigdi, Pune, who had remained out of employment since his dismissal in August 2013.
Walunj was employed at the company’s Ranjangaon unit and later deputed to its Chakan warehouse. Under company policy, employees using two-wheelers received a transport allowance of ₹3 per kilometer.
The management alleged that between January 2011 and June 2012, Walunj claimed transport allowances using inflated travel distances, leading to an excess payment of ₹17,868. Following a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service on August 9, 2013. After the Industrial Tribunal upheld his dismissal, Walunj approached the Bombay High Court to challenge both the enquiry and the punishment.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne examined the inquiry evidence and noted that the employer’s own witness admitted to multiple routes between Walunj’s residence and workplace—ranging from 16.5 km to approximately 22 km one way. The Court observed that this crucial evidence had not been adequately considered, meaning the charges could not be sustained in full.
Making a clear distinction between deliberate embezzlement and an incorrect travel distance claim, Justice Marne highlighted that the company itself had accepted varying distance claims over different periods, indicating uncertainty over the actual distance. The Court also took note of Walunj’s clean past service record and mitigating factors like confusion over travel routes. Although finding the dismissal illegal, the Court decided against reinstatement, noting that returning to work after nearly 13 years was impractical given the strained relations. Instead, it ordered the company to pay ₹8 lakh compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages within two months, failing which the amount would attract an 8% annual interest.
