Sopan Tulshiram Birajdar vs The Divisional Traffic Sup. & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8867 Bom

                                     1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 3542 OF 2002

          Sopan S/o. Tulshiram Birajdar,
          Age. 53 years, Occ. Nil, 
          R/o. Hulyal, Post. Akamba,
          Tq. Aurand Barhalli, Dist. Bidar.                    ...Petitioner.

                   Versus

 1.       The Divisional Traffic Superintendent,
          Maharashtra State Road Transport
          Corporation, Osmanabad.

 2.       The Divisional Controller,
          Maharashtra State Road Transport 
          Corporation, Osmanabad.

 3.       The State of Maharashtra.                       ...Respondents.



 Advocate for Petitioner : Shri R.C. Patil.
 Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Shri A.B. Dhongade.
 AGP for Respondent No. 3 : Smt. V.S. Chaudhari.



                                      CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

                                      Dated    : 20th November, 2017

 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour

Court dated 15/07/1998, by which, his Complaint (ULP) No.

71/1991 was dismissed. He is also aggrieved by the judgment

of the Industrial Court dated 12/08/2002, by which his

Revision (ULP) No. 105/1998, has been dismissed.

2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Patil,

learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Dhongade, learned

advocate for the respondent MSRT Corporation. With their

assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book.

3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for having committed a

grave and serious misconduct of misappropriation while

performing his duty as a Bus Conductor. On 07/04/1991,

when the Bus left Bhoom, District Osmanabad and was

traveling to Akluj in Solapur District, it was checked while in

journey and it was noticed that several passengers who had

entered the Bus, were traveling ticketless. Those passengers

were interrogated and fine with Rs. 50/- per person and their

statements were recorded. Based on the same, the

departmental enquiry was conducted and as the charges

against the petitioner were proved, he was dismissed from

service by way of punishment on 16/05/1991.

4. The petitioner preferred Complaint (ULP) NO. 71/1991

before the Labour Court. The Labour Court upheld the

domestic enquiry and also upheld the conclusions of the

Enquiry Officer. As the enquiry was held to be fair and proper,

the Labour Court considered whether the punishment awarded

to the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity

and seriousness of the misconduct proved. By its judgment

dated 15/07/1998, the complaint was dismissed.

5. The Industrial Court, while considering the Revision

Petition filed by the petitioner, re-considered the proceedings

and after considering the evidence and material on record, it

was concluded that the dismissal is justified.

6. In this petition, the petitioner has contended that both the

impugned judgments are perverse and the charges are not

proved against the petitioner.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of KSRTC Versus

B.S. Hullikatti [( 2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 574] and in

the matter of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Versus

A.T. Mane [2005) 3 SCC 254], has concluded that the

passengers who were traveling ticketless or had been issued

with used tickets, are not required to be examined in the

enquiry. Non-examination of such passengers is not fatal to the

enquiry.

8. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the

findings of the Enquiry Officer were sustained by the Labour

Court as well as by the Industrial Court. There is no material

before this Court through the pleadings so as to take a different

view.

9. It is settled law that when the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are sustained and the enquiry is held to be fair and

proper, the charges are held to be proved against the

delinquent. In this backdrop, the proportionality of the

punishment can be scrutinized.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Janatha Bazar

(South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores

Limited) Etc. Versus The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarana

Sangha Etc. [(2000) 7 SCC 517] and the learned Division

Bench of this Court, in the matter of P.R. Shele Versus Union

of India and others [2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 33], has concluded that

where an employee has been held guilty of misappropriation,

the amount of money misappropriated is immaterial. Such an

employee must be kept away from work.

11. The past record of the petitioner indicates that he was

dismissed on two occasions prior to his dismissal at issue dated

16/05/1991. The said dismissal was for similar acts of

misappropriation and the petitioner was subsequently

reinstated.

12. Considering the above, I do not find any merit in this

petition and the same, is therefore, dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) S.P.C.