Annasaheb Laxman Atole vs Maharashtra State Raod Transport ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5856 Bom

                                             1




                                                                               
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                       
                            WRIT PETITION NO.8334 OF 2015

    Annasaheb Laxman Atole,
    Age-56 years, Occu-Nil,




                                                      
    R/o Takali Kazi, Taluka Nagar,
    Dist. Ahmednagar                                         -- PETITIONER 

    VERSUS




                                            
    Maharashtra State Road Transport
    Corporation, Ahmednagar Division,
                              
    Sarjepura, Kotla, Ahmednagar
    Through its Divisional Controller                        -- RESPONDENT

Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 05/10/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Part II award dated

19/12/2013 by which Ref.(IDA) No.54/2007 has been answered in

the negative.

3. Mr.Barde, learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously

khs/OCT.2016/8334-d

canvassed the following aspects.

[a] The petitioner joined employment as a driver in 1981. [b] On 22/09/1991, when the bus was near the Chinchodi village bus stop on the Ahmednagar Jamkhed route, a 65 year old,

blind and deaf person collided with the left corner of the bus and fell down on the road . Subsequently he passed away. [c] After conducting a departmental enquiry against the petitioner,

he was terminated on 06/12/2001.

[d] Barring the above incident, there is no other major accident

[e]

involving the petitioner in 20 years of service. Minor incidents have occurred.

[f] He is out of employment for about 15 years and has attained the age of superannuation on 29/05/2016.

[g] He has been acquitted of the charge of having committed an offence punishable u/s 279 and Section 304-A of the IPC by

the judgment of the learned J.M.F.C. dated 27/04/1995.

[h] He can be considered to be in continuous employment with or without back wages and gratuity could be awarded to him considering that a shockingly disproportionate punishment

has been awarded to him.

4. Mr.Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the respondent/

Corporation has supported the impugned Part II Award. He submits

that the Part I Award dated 24/01/2013, upholding the departmental

enquiry as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, has not been

challenged by the petitioner in this petition. The accident at issue

has resulted in the death of a person, which is by itself a grave and

khs/OCT.2016/8334-d

serious misconduct. His past record is blemished. He has been

punished 16 times out of which 9 misconducts pertain to

unauthorized absenteeism and 6 misconducts are with regard to

minor accidents, excluding the present misconduct.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates

and I have gone through the Part-II award.

6. The enquiry has been sustained by the Part-I award dated

24/01/2013. The evidence on record indicates that the petitioner

had applied brakes of the bus when he saw the deceased person

coming out of the crowd in front of the bus. The brake marks left by

the tyres of the bus on the road indicate 18 feet long black marks. It

would, therefore, indicate that the bus was not being driven at a slow

speed. Though it may be difficult to assess as to the speed of the

bus, but the brake marks appearing on the road being 18 feet long,

would surely indicate that the bus was not being driven at a slow

speed despite the petitioner passing through a village.

7. The past service record of the petitioner indicates 6 minor

instances of damage to the bus. On 3 occasions, his basic salary

was reduced by one stage for 6 months each. On other 3 occasions

khs/OCT.2016/8334-d

he was fined with Rs.50/- and Rs.100/- (2 occasions).

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Damoh Panna Sagar

Rural Regional Bank and another Vs.Munna Lal Jain, 2005(104) FLR

291 has concluded that unless the punishment appears to be

shockingly disproportionate, no interference should be caused in the

quantum of punishment merely because it appears to be

disproportionate. Only when the judicial conscience is shocked by

the quantum of punishment considering the gravity and seriousness

of the misconducts proved, that the Court should interfere with the

punishment. In the instant case, not only is the incident at issue

grave and serious, the past service record of the petitioner would be

an aggravating factor.

9. In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned award

could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. The petition, being

devoid of merit, is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/OCT.2016/8334-d