1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3542 OF 2002
Sopan S/o. Tulshiram Birajdar,
Age. 53 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Hulyal, Post. Akamba,
Tq. Aurand Barhalli, Dist. Bidar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Divisional Traffic Superintendent,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Osmanabad.
2. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Osmanabad.
3. The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondents.
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri R.C. Patil.
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Shri A.B. Dhongade.
AGP for Respondent No. 3 : Smt. V.S. Chaudhari.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated : 20th November, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 15/07/1998, by which, his Complaint (ULP) No. 71/1991 was dismissed. He is also aggrieved by the judgment ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:58:02 ::: 2 of the Industrial Court dated 12/08/2002, by which his Revision (ULP) No. 105/1998, has been dismissed.
2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Dhongade, learned advocate for the respondent MSRT Corporation. With their assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book.
3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for having committed a grave and serious misconduct of misappropriation while performing his duty as a Bus Conductor. On 07/04/1991, when the Bus left Bhoom, District Osmanabad and was traveling to Akluj in Solapur District, it was checked while in journey and it was noticed that several passengers who had entered the Bus, were traveling ticketless. Those passengers were interrogated and fine with Rs. 50/- per person and their statements were recorded. Based on the same, the departmental enquiry was conducted and as the charges against the petitioner were proved, he was dismissed from service by way of punishment on 16/05/1991. ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:58:02 ::: 3
4. The petitioner preferred Complaint (ULP) NO. 71/1991 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court upheld the domestic enquiry and also upheld the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. As the enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the Labour Court considered whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct proved. By its judgment dated 15/07/1998, the complaint was dismissed.
5. The Industrial Court, while considering the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, re-considered the proceedings and after considering the evidence and material on record, it was concluded that the dismissal is justified.
6. In this petition, the petitioner has contended that both the impugned judgments are perverse and the charges are not proved against the petitioner.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of KSRTC Versus B.S. Hullikatti [( 2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 574] and in ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:58:02 ::: 4 the matter of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Versus A.T. Mane [2005) 3 SCC 254], has concluded that the passengers who were traveling ticketless or had been issued with used tickets, are not required to be examined in the enquiry. Non-examination of such passengers is not fatal to the enquiry.
8. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were sustained by the Labour Court as well as by the Industrial Court. There is no material before this Court through the pleadings so as to take a different view.
9. It is settled law that when the findings of the Enquiry Officer are sustained and the enquiry is held to be fair and proper, the charges are held to be proved against the delinquent. In this backdrop, the proportionality of the punishment can be scrutinized.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Janatha Bazar ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:58:02 ::: 5 (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Versus The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarana Sangha Etc. [(2000) 7 SCC 517] and the learned Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of P.R. Shele Versus Union of India and others [2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 33], has concluded that where an employee has been held guilty of misappropriation, the amount of money misappropriated is immaterial. Such an employee must be kept away from work.
11. The past record of the petitioner indicates that he was dismissed on two occasions prior to his dismissal at issue dated 16/05/1991. The said dismissal was for similar acts of misappropriation and the petitioner was subsequently reinstated.
12. Considering the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same, is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) S.P.C.
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:58:02 :::