Sandu Dhondiba Narwade vs The State Of Maharahstra & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 3144 Bom

                                              1
                                                                    2 WRIT PETITION.3543.1995.odt


                   THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                                                
                          APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION




                                                        
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 3543 OF 1995

    Sandu S/o Dhondiba Narwade,




                                                       
    Age-40 Years, Occu: Nil,
    (At present) R/o. Kailas-nagar,
    Smashan Maroti Road, Jafargate,
    Aurangabad.                                              ... PETITIONER




                                           
                       V E R S U S

    1.
                                  
               The State of Maharashtra,
               (Through Govt. Pleader, of
                High Court of Bombay, Bench
                                 
                at Aurangabad.)

    2.         The Divisional Controller,
               M.S.R.T.C., Aurangabad,
      

               Division, Aurangabad.                         ... RESPONDENT
   



                                              ...
    None for Petitioner.
    Mr. P. G. Borade, AGP for Respondent No.1.
    Smt. R. D. Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2.





                                       ...


                                                CORAM  : P. R. BORA, J.

                                                DATE      : 23rd June, 2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

     
    .                  None has appeared for the Petitioner even on second call.

On the previous date i.e. on 9th June, 2016 also none had appeared

for the Petitioner. However, so as to give one more opportunity to the

2 WRIT PETITION.3543.1995.odt

Petitioner, the matter was adjourned till today. Today also, none has

appeared for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 is

present before the Court.

2 With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2, I have perused the impugned judgment and the

grounds of objection raised by the Petitioner in this petition in

exception to the impugned order. Apparently, there appears no

reason for causing any interference in the impugned judgment and

award.

3 The aforesaid reference was forwarded for adjudication to

the Labour Court at Jalna on a dispute raised by the present

Petitioner in respect of his termination by the Respondent /

Corporation. The Petitioner was working as a conductor with

Respondent No.2 - Corporation and his services were terminated

after conducting a domestic enquiry against him. In the enquiry so

conducted, the Petitioner was charged with an allegation that he had

misappropriated the public amount. It was specifically alleged against

the Petitioner that he was continuously indulging in making short

payment with the cashier and was thus misappropriating the amount.

In the enquiry conducted against him, as per the report of enquiry

2 WRIT PETITION.3543.1995.odt

submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the charges leveled against the

Petitioner were proved and having regard to the seriousness of

charges leveled against the Petitioner, punishment of dismissal from

service was imposed on him. The Petitioner had availed remedy of

approaching his superior officers, however, the appeals so filed by

him before said authorities were also dismissed. The Petitioner,

therefore, raised the dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of

Labour, Aurangabad whereupon the reference was made and

forwarded for adjudication to the Labour Court at Aurangabad.

4 It was the contention of the Petitioner before the Labour

Court that in spite of there being any cogent and sufficient evidence

against him, he was held guilty in the departmental proceedings. It

was his further contention that for embezzlement of amount, the

Cashier of the Respondent / Corporation was responsible, but illegally

he was held guilty for the same. The Tribunal while delivering the

impugned judgment, however, has rejected the objections so raised

by the Petitioner. On going through the reasons assigned by the

learned Tribunal, it does not appear to me that any error has been

committed by the learned Labour Court in dismissing the reference

application. The domestic enquiry held against the Petitioner was

2 WRIT PETITION.3543.1995.odt

held proper and fair by the Labour Court and the said issue was

decided as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court has further with

reasons recorded a finding that the conclusion recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry against the Petitioner,

cannot be said to be perverse. Considering the fact that charge of

financial irregularity and more particularly misappropriation of the

amount of S.T. Corporation was proved in the departmental enquiry

held against the Petitioner, the Labour Court has refused to grant any

relief to the Petitioner and has consequently dismissed the reference

application.

5 After having gone through the impugned judgment, it does

not appear to me that any interference is required in the impugned

judgment. The reasons recorded are sound. The petition so filed is

devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed. It is

accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.

[ P. R. BORA, J. ] ndm