Bhagwan S/O Ganuji Gadekar vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 255 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.M. Kanade, J.

1. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking appropriate writ directing the Respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity of service and for further direction of quashing enquiry report passed by the Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of dismissal dated January 23, 1984.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as an Officer trainee for a period of 9 months vide order dated May 10, 1977. Upon completion of training by the petitioner in the Central Training Institute, Bhusari, he was appointed as Class II (Jr.) Officer in the Scale of Rs. 350-650/- and was posted as Additional Depot Manager of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Pune Region. The petitioner was confirmed as Technical Class II (Junior) Officer with effect from March 1, 1979.

3. The petitioner was transferred from Pune Region to Nagpur Region on December 23, 1978 and was subsequently transferred to Akola Division as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer on July 16, 1980. On November 23, 1982, the Petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 3 calling his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It was alleged in this letter that the petitioner has secured Petrol at the cost of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The Petitioner submitted his explanation by sending his reply dated December 10, 1982 and denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter the petitioner was issued charge sheet dated December 17, 1982 and he was charged for the misconduct specified in Clause 12(a) and Clause 12(b) of Schedule A of the Discipline and Appeal proceedings. Enquiry held was concluded by the Enquiry Officer who recorded the statements of number of witnesses and he found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued as to why he should not be dismissed from service in view of the enquiry. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice challenging the said enquiry report on the ground that enquiry report was vitiated as he was not given due opportunity and that the said report was based on the statements not recorded during the course of enquiry. The petitioner's service was dismissed by the second respondent by his order dated January 23, 1984. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. However, the appeal was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal

from service, the petitioner preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. We have perused the petition, annexures thereto as also record of the enquiry proceedings which is annexed to the petition. It is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there is violation of the principles of natural justice and that the statement of the attendant of the Petrol Pump was not recorded by the Enquiry Officer and as a result the petitioner did not have an opportunity to cross examine the Petrol Pump Attendant and senior Statistician. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also challenged the enquiry report on merits and challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also Appellate Authority in relying on the evidence of the Petrol Pump Attendant and the other evidence on record. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1995 Supplementary (3) SCC, 312, wherein it has been held that an omission to supply the documents and refusing opportunity to cross-examine was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the Apex Court held that fresh enquiry should be held. We are unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. We have perused the record. The record shows that the petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that he did not need any representative to represent him in the enquiry and he had himself cross examined the witnesses. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. The Enquiry Officer has considered all the statements and has arrived at the finding of fact which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. There is, thus, no error of law pointed out by the petitioner so as to call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not propose to invoke the writ jurisdiction to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter, the Petition is rejected. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.