Bombay High Court
Pandurang Ukandi Bansode vs Mah-State Road Transport ... on 20 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 238.wp.1077.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1077 OF 1997
Pandurang s/o Ukandi Bansode,
Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Gadanki, Pensionpura,
Hingoli, Dist.Parbhani.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation.
Through its Divisional Controller, Parbhani.
2 Divisional Traffic Superintendent,
MSRTC, Parbhani.
3 The State of Maharashtra.
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Through its AGP.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri P.L.Shahane.
None for the Respondents.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 20th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 Respondent No.3 being a formal party, stands deleted.
2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour
*2* 238.wp.1077.97
Court dated 31.12.1994 by which his Complaint (ULP) No.91/1990 was
dismissed. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment of the
Industrial Court dated 27.02.1997 by which his Revision Petition
No.2/1995 has been dismissed.
3 I have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner for quite
sometime. None for the Respondent/ Corporation.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the
Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court. The Petitioner was a Bus
Conductor, who was appointed on 22.12.1971. Before he was dismissed
from service giving rise to this litigation, he was punished on several
occasions for having committed similar misconducts of misappropriation.
Lesser punishments like fine, warning, reduction of basic pay, withholding
of increments on permanent basis, etc. were imposed on him.
5 With regard to the cause of action at issue, the bus was
checked by the Checking Squad of the Corporation while in journey. 22
passengers out of 61 were found to be traveling without tickets. Some of
the passengers had paid the ticket fare and it was explained by the
Petitioner that he could not issue tickets to them after acceptance of fare
since the bus was over crowded and was checked at the distance of two
*3* 238.wp.1077.97
and half kilometers from the starting point. A departmental enquiry was
conducted against the Petitioner as per the Discipline and Appeal
procedure. Upon being found guilty of misappropriation, he was dismissed
from service on 08.12.1990.
6 In the complaint filed by the Petitioner challenging his
dismissal, the Labour Court scrutinized the enquiry and the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and concluded that the principles of natural justice were
adhered to while conducting the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry
Officer are not perverse. The Labour Court then concluded, after
considering highly blemished past service record of the Petitioner, that the
punishment awarded to him was not shockingly disproportionate. The
complaint was, therefore, dismissed.
7 In the revision petition filed by the Petitioner, the Industrial
Court once again revisited the entire case by considering the record and
proceedings. Noting that dishonesty was proved and excess cash was
found with the Petitioner and after considering his blemished past service
record, the Industrial Court has dismissed the revision petition.
8 The Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Damoh
Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank vs. Munna Lal Jain, 2005 (104) FLR
*4* 238.wp.1077.97
291, has concluded that unless the punishment appears to be shockingly
disproportionate and the judicial conscience of the Court is shocked, no
interference is called for. Even if the punishment may appear to be slightly
disproportionate, the Court ought not to interfere.
9 The Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Janatha
Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) vs.
Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha, 2000(7) SCC 517 : AIR 2000 SC
3129, and the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
P.R.Shele vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 33, have
concluded that in the cases of misappropriation, whether, the amount
misappropriated is small or large, is insignificant. Misappropriation is a
grave and serious misconduct which deserves to be dealt with, with an
iron hand.
10 Shri Shahane informs that during the pendency of the
proceedings before the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court as
well as this Court, the Petitioner was protected, he continued in service
and has superannuated on 31.12.2005. All retiral benefits have been paid
to him except gratuity. He, therefore, prays that the gratuity be protected.
11 Considering the misconduct proved, any indulgence by this
*5* 238.wp.1077.97
Court would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. It is under
fortuitous circumstances that the Petitioner continued in employment
during the pendency of the litigation, survived the dismissal order and
retired from service. The Respondent/ Corporation paid him entire retiral
benefits except gratuity.
12 Since I find that the impugned judgments of the Labour Court
and the Industrial Court cannot be termed as being perverse or erroneous,
this Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is, therefore, discharged.
13 Needless to state, the Petitioner would not be entitled for
gratuity considering the effect of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972. So also, the retiral benefits paid until now, shall not be
recovered.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
