Bombay High Court
Mohd.Ishawue S/Oabdul Rahman vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 March, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
(1) W.P. No. 02252 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 02252 of 1998
District : Latur
Mohd. Ishaque s/o. Abdul Rahman,
Age : 52 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. Latur,
Taluka & District Latur. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Government Pleader, .. Respondent no.01
High Court, Aurangabad. deleted.
2. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Latur Division,
Latur. .. Respondents.
...........
Ms. A.N. Ansari, Advocate, for the petitioner
(Absent).
Respondent no.01 deleted.
Mrs. R.D. Reddy, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
...........
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE : 02ND MARCH 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment
of the Labour Court, Latur, dated 08.09.1993, by
which his Complaint (ULP) No. 19/1992 has been
dismissed. He is also aggrieved by the judgment of
(2) W.P. No. 02252 of 1998
Industrial Court, Solapur, dated 18.01.1996, by which
his Revision (ULP) No. 053/1994 has been dismissed.
02. None appears for the petitioner though
matter is shown on the final hearing board dated
06.02.2017 which is taken up on every Thursday.
03. I have heard the learned Advocate for
respondent no.02 - M.S.R.T.C. Respondent no.01 -
State of Maharashtra is not a necessary party and,
therefore, stands deleted from the proceedings.
04. The petitioner was before the Labour Court
for challenging his order of dismissal dated
26.06.1992. An enquiry was conducted against him
since he was apprehended on 15.09.1991, operating the
bus from Bidar to Latur, when few passengers were
found travelling with used tickets. After conducting
the enquiry, it was concluded that the charges are
proved. The petitioner was, therefore, dismissed
from service by way of punishment.
05. The Labour Court while considering the
fairness of the enquiry, concluded that the enquiry
was conducted in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. Merely because few questions were
posed by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, would
not render the enquiry vitiated. The evidence
recorded in the enquiry was analyzed by the Enquiry
Officer and the petitioner was held guilty of
misappropriation.
(3) W.P. No. 02252 of 1998
06. In so far as the proportionality of the
punishment is concerned, the Labour Court concluded
that the acts of misappropriation of selling old /
used tickets to the passengers, cannot be pardoned.
The punishment of dismissal from service was
commensurate. The Industrial Court has dismissed the
revision petition filed by the petitioner. The
record and proceedings of the enquiry and of the
Labour Court were once again gone into by the
Industrial Court and it concluded that the act of
misappropriation deserves the punishment of
dismissal.
07. I find from the record, that the
misappropriation of Rs. 39/- on 15.09.1991 was
noticed because of the surprise check. The
petitioner was charged with having sold used tickets
and having pocketed the money.
08. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale
Stores Ltd.), etc Vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangh,
etc. (AIR 2000 SC 3129) and the learned Division Bench
of this Court in the matter of P.R.Shele Vs. Union of
India & others [2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 33] has concluded that
in an act of misappropriation, the quantum of money
misappropriated is not significant. The conduct of
the employee and the act of misappropriation in
itself is grave and serious and such persons do not
deserve to be kept in employment. The learned
(4) W.P. No. 02252 of 1998
Division Bench has concluded that dismissal from
service is the appropriate punishment for employees
indulging in misappropriation.
09. 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 awarded to an employee shocks
the judicial conscience and appears to be shockingly
disproportionate, no interference is called for.
Merely because the punishment appears to be
disproportionate, is not enough as it should be
shockingly disproportionate.
10. Considering the above, I do not find that
the impugned judgments of the Labour Court as well as
the Industrial Court, concluding that the punishment
awarded to the petitioner is commensurate could be
termed as being perverse or erroneous.
11. This petition being devoid of merit, is
therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( Ravindra V. Ghuge )
JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP2252.98
