Bombay High Court
Vasant Ganpatrao Deshpande vs Divisional ... on 25 July, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/4226/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4226 OF 1995
Vasant Ganpatrao Deshpande,
Age 35 years, Occ. Service as a
Driver in S.T.Department,
Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport, Nanded.
2. The Industrial Court, Jalna.
...
..Respondent
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri A.B.Kharosekar
Advocate for Respondents : None present.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: July 25, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. None appeared for the respondents.
2. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner
considering the fact that this petition is 21 years' old and is on the
final hearing board.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent /
Corporation, by which, he was dismissed from service on 30.5.1988
for having committed an accident of the Bus, which he was driving
WP/4226/1995
and which resulted in injuries to 42 passengers.
4. Shri Kharosekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has
strenuously criticized the judgment of the Labour Court dated
8.2.1995, by which, his challenge to the dismissal through Complaint
(ULP) No.11 of 1988, was rejected. He has also criticized the
judgment of the Industrial Court dated 28.8.1995, by which, his
Revision (ULP) No.15 of 1995 was dismissed.
5.
He points out that by the judgment dated 29.10.1990,
delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), in criminal
proceedings, the petitioner was acquitted of the offence punishable
under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, which is with
regard to rash and negligent driving. He, therefore, submits that
owing to the acquittal in the criminal proceeding, both the impugned
judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside. He further submits
that the petitioner has recently retired from service as he was in
employment under the interim orders of this Court.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for
the petitioner.
7. The petitioner was a Driver in the service of the respondent.
An accident of the Bus driven by him took place on 31.5.1987 on the
WP/4226/1995
Islapur-Apparao Peth route. The said accident caused injuries to
about 42 persons. After conducting a domestic enquiry as per the
Discipline and Appeal Rules, the petitioner was dismissed from
service on 30.5.1988. It is noteworthy that the petitioner caused an
accident in less than 12 months from the date of his joining duties.
8. It needs to be noted that by the interim order dated 7.9.1988,
the Labour Court confirmed the ex-parte interim relief and directed
the reinstatement of the petitioner. By judgment dated 25.11.1988,
the Industrial Court dismissed the Revision (ULP) No.44 of 1988, filed
by the corporation. As a consequence of such relief, the petitioner is
in employment. It is stated by Shri Kharosekar that thereafter, he
did not cause any accident.
9. Though by the impugned judgments of the Labour and
Industrial Courts, the dismissal of the petitioner has been sustained,
this Court, by its order dated 4.9.1995, admitted the petition and
directed that if the petitioner is in service, status quo be continued.
By virtue of the said order, the petitioner is said to have continued in
service and has recently retired about two month's ago.
10. It is trite law that acquittal in criminal proceedings would not
ipso facto lead to the exoneration of an employee in disciplinary
proceedings. It is well settled that the criminal proceedings are
WP/4226/1995
conceptually distinct and different than the disciplinary proceedings
in service jurisprudence. Though the petitioner has been acquitted
by the learned Magistrate from the charge of rash and negligent
driving, he has been held guilty of having caused an accident, which
resulted in damage to the Bus and injuries to 42 passengers.
11. It is not in dispute that the enquiry and the findings of the
Enquiry Officer have not been interfered with by the Labour as well
as the Industrial Courts.
12. Considering the above, the issue is as regards the
proportionality of punishment, taking into account that the enquiry is
not set aside and the findings of the enquiry officer have not been
branded as perverse. The charges are, therefore, proved against the
petitioner.
13. A Bus Driver, causing an accident, which has resulted in
injuries to 42 passengers, in my view, cannot be said to be a mis-
conduct of a minor or technical character so as to invoke item 1(g) of
Schedule IV of the the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The impugned
judgments of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court upholding the
quantum of punishment, do not appear to be perverse or
erroneous.The punishment does not appear to be shockingly
WP/4226/1995
disproportionate considering the gravity of the accident and the fact
that the petitioner has not even put in 12 months in service. The
challenge posed by the petitioner to the impugned judgment,
therefore, is mis-conceived and rejected.
14. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and Rule is discharged.
15. However, it cannot be overlooked that by virtue of the interim
orders as well as by the order of this Court dated 4.9.1995, the
petitioner has continued in service and has recently retired on
attaining the age of superannuation. As such, the dismissal of this
petition shall not be a cause for depriving the petitioner of his retiral
benefits since he is said to be in employment from 1987 upon
reinstatement till his retirement in 2016. He shall, therefore, be
entitled for retiral benefits in accordance with the rules of the
Corporation.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
