Bombay High Court
Manohar S/O Ramchandra Damal vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 J-WP-5965-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5965 OF 2013
Manohar s/o Ramchandra Dadmal,
61 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Shivaji Ward No.9,
Behind Maharashtra Bank,
Tukum, Chandrapur. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation through :
The Vice Chairman & Managing Director,
MSRTC, Central Offices,
Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan,
Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg,
Mumbai - 400 008.
2. The General Manager (P & IR),
MSRTC, Central Offices,
Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan,
Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg,
Mumbai - 400 008.
3. The Regional Manager,
MSRT Corporation,
Regional Office,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
4. The Divisional Controller,
MSRT Corporation,
Divisional Office,
Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS
(Amended as per Court's
order dtd. 26.11.13).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. A. H. Jamal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:10:34 :::
2 J-WP-5965-13.odt
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
18/07/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order
of the competent authority, dated 09/06/2008 withholding three
increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect.
The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk by the
respondent - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in July,
1976. The petitioner was promoted from time to time and while he was
working as a Divisional Personnel Officer and Secretary in the year
2004, a charge sheet was served on him, alleging therein that though it
was necessary for the petitioner, who was the Secretary, to give
separate dockets marked as Annexures - A and B to the Committee
Members for awarding the marks for the selection of Drivers (Junior),
the petitioner did not provide the said annexures and gave only one
docket to the Committee Members. According to the respondent -
corporation, though the petitioner was required to collect the mark-
sheets from the Members of the Committee, the petitioner did not
collect them and acted negligently. The petitioner replied to the charge
sheet, but since the reply did not find favour with the respondent, a
departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. As per the
3 J-WP-5965-13.odt
enquiry report, the charge against the petitioner that he did not give
two dockets marked as Annexures - A and B to the Selection Committee
Members and gave only one docket was proved. The Enquiry Officer
further found that the petitioner had not collected the mark sheets from
each of the individual Selection Committee Members and therefore, the
petitioner had acted negligently while working as a Secretary. On the
basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, after granting an opportunity
to the petitioner, the competent authority imposed the punishment of
reduction of three increments with cumulative effect. The said order is
challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
Shri Jamal, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is
shockingly disproportionate to the act of mis-conduct committed by the
petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was not solely responsible
for looking after the affairs of the Selection Committee. It is stated that
merely because two dockets were not given and one docket was
supplied to each of the Committee Members, the punishment of
withholding of three increments with cumulative effect could not have
been imposed. It is submitted that similar charges were framed against
three officers by the respondent - corporation and though initially an
order of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect was
passed against each of them, the departmental appeal filed by one of
the officers was allowed and the punishment was set aside. It is stated
4 J-WP-5965-13.odt
that two of the three employees approached the Industrial Court and by
allowing the complaint filed by the two employees, a lesser punishment
was imposed on them. It is submitted that when the three other
employees who were charged for having committed similar
irregularities have been either exonerated or given a lesser punishment,
the petitioner cannot be singled out and made to suffer the punishment
that is extremely harsh. It is stated that on parity, it would be necessary
for the corporation to impose a lesser punishment on the petitioner.
Shri Wankhede, the learned counsel for the corporation
has supported the order of the competent authority. It is stated that
since the petitioner was holding a responsible post of the Secretary, it
was necessary for the petitioner to have followed the circular before
preparing the dockets and mark-sheets for the Selection Committee
Members. It is submitted that because of the negligence on the part of
the petitioner, there were illegalities in the selection process pertaining
to the appointment of Drivers (Junior). The learned counsel however
fairly admitted that the departmental appeal filed by one of the officers
against whom similar charges were levelled was allowed and a lesser
punishment was imposed on the other two similarly situated employees
in view of the orders passed by the Industrial Court in the complaints
filed by them. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, an
appropriate order may be passed.
5 J-WP-5965-13.odt
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly
disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by him. No doubt,
the petitioner should have adhered to the instructions in the circular of
the respondent - corporation before preparing the papers for the
Members of the Selection Committee for making the appointment of
Drivers (Junior). However, the charge proved against the petitioner is
that instead of preparing two dockets in the form of annexures A and B,
the petitioner had prepared one docket and hence the exact procedure
that was required to be followed by the Selection Committee was not
followed. If four employees were charge sheeted and similar charges
were levelled against them, it would not be proper to inflict a harsher
punishment on the petitioner when the departmental appeal filed by
one of the officers was allowed and on two other employees a lesser
punishment is imposed in terms of the orders of the Industrial Court.
When four employees were similarly charged and when similar
punishment was imposed on the four employees, the petitioner cannot
be singled out and made to suffer a harsher punishment merely because
he had not approached the Industrial Court or his departmental appeal
was not allowed. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary
to quash and set aside the order of the competent authority and direct
the competent authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner and
impose a lesser punishment on him.
6 J-WP-5965-13.odt
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
partly allowed. The order of the competent authority is quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded to the competent authority for imposing
a lesser punishment on the petitioner. The respondent - corporation is
directed to take a decision pertaining to the imposition of a lesser
punishment, positively within two months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
