Bombay High Court
The High Court Bombay Bench At ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 30 April, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SUO MOTO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 01 OF 2017
The High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad
Through Registrar (Judicial) ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
Transport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Managing Director
Maharashtra State Road Trasport
Corporation, Head Office at Maharashtra
Vahatuk Bhavan, Mumbai Central,
Dr. Nayar Marg, Mumbai-8.
3. Regional Manager,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Regional Office,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
(Respondent No.3 deleted as per
Court's order dated 25.01.2019)
....
Mr. S.S.Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner (appointed as
amicus curiae)
Mr. P.S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for Respondent No.1. / State.
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. S.R. Sapkal, Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
....
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
1 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
Closed for Judgment on : 18.03.2021
Judgment Pronounced on : 30.04.2021
JUDGMENT (PER SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) :-
1. The scheme attempted to be introduced by the Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
"MSRTC") / Respondent No.2 as " Kutumb Suraksha Yojna", whereby
terminated or suspended conductors are sought to be re-appointed
under the said scheme, is under challenge in the present Suo Moto
Public Interest Litigation.
Background of PIL
2. One Mr. Sharad Babrao Pote and others had filed writ petition
No.10038 of 2016 before this Court and sought relaxation of the age
restriction made under the notification of the MSRTC from 45 to
higher age in order to get benefit of the said scheme " Kutumb
Suraksha Yojna". The said writ petition was placed before the Division
Bench of this Court on 30.06.2017, when this Court noticed that the
scheme floated by the MSRTC is against the public interest since the
employees who were charged or terminated or suspended on account
of mis-appropriation of funds sought to be re-appointed under the
guise of the scheme. This Court, converted the above said writ
petition into Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation to consider the
2 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
notification in question / scheme since it is against the interest of the
public at large.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as under:
3(i) The MSRTC has come out with a novel scheme of
re-appointment of those conductors who are either suspended or
terminated in order to extend financial benefits to the family
members of such conductors under the scheme "Kutumb Suraksha
Yojna". Respondent No.2 / MSRTC has issued a Circular No.25 of
2016 dated 06.08.2016, thereby launched a scheme for conductors
who are dismissed on account of mis-appropriation or any charges of
fraud or otherwise, employed with MSRTC to be re-appointed as per
the said Circular / Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of
MSRTC in the meeting dated 01.04.2016 under the scheme " Kutumb
Suraksha Yojna". The intention in launching such schme was tried to
be canvassed in such a fashion to show that due to the litigation
between the MSRTC and the suspended / dismissed conductors on
account of mis-appropriation or fraud, heavy financial loss is being
caused to the Corporation. It is also stated in the said scheme that due
to the misdeeds of the said conductors, their family members are
facing financial problems and in order to protect their families, such a
scheme is launched in for their benefit.
3 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
STAND OF THE MSRTC
4. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director of MSRTC, Mumbai
has sworn the affidavit and tried to justify the scheme floated by the
MSRTC. It is stated in the reply affidavit that there are about 32,000
conductors who come from semiliterate category had bench mark
qualification for their recruitment of S.S.C. pass. In most of the cases,
the person recruited as a conductor is alone member of the family
who takes care of old parents and family. While discharging duty as
conductors, they commit mistakes in issuing tickets as well as
counting passengers. There is improper calculation of the cash. As
they are handling cash, they are lured by the sense of making
immediate profit of few bucks. In doing so find themselves in
unfortunate circumstances and are branded as persons committing
mis-appropriation.
5. The MSRTC as a policy, does not file criminal cases against
those conductors. The conductors found committing
mis-appropriation or causing loss to the Corporation by negligence
are dealt with disciplinary Rules of the Corporation. The employees of
the MSRTC have several unions and some times they are misguided
by the unions and it results in filing the cases against the MSRTC
before the various forums, thereby putting financial burden on the
4 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
MSRTC. Many conductors used to obtain loan from the State
Transport Cooperative Bank and there is responsibility on the
shoulders of conductors to repay the loan. If the conductors are
slapped with dismissal, their entire family come on the street. There
are rounds of litigation, enquiry, appeals and Court litigation. The
family members are the most sufferers. The children have to lose the
opportunity of education. By taking into consideration all these facts,
the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 01.04.2016, decided to
provide one time solution to such conductors and their families.
Accordingly, the MSRTC had issued a Circular No. 25 of 2016 dated
06.08.2016 and introduced the scheme as "Kutumb Suraksha Yojna".
6. The very purpose of issuance of such Circular is that the
employees who are dismissed from the services for the irregularities
in issuing tickets and for mis-appropriation may get a chance to save
their family from starvation. The object of the scheme is that the
family members of the said employees should not be punished for the
act of their sole bread earner. One more aspect is to provide an
opportunity to such conductors to reform themselves by getting fresh
appointment and begin their employment a fresh. The Corporation in
this regard adhere to the Gandhian philosophy of reforming a
criminal rather than punishing them and detaching them from the
5 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
social cycle of which they were a part before the crime was committed
by them.
7. It is further stand of the MSRTC that while issuing such Circular
No. 25 of 2016, the MSRTC has put stringent terms and conditions.
The Circular is applicable to all types of irregularities in issuing tickets
and misconducts. The employees will not get benefit of the past
service benefits like gratuity etc. The employees who have completed
45 years of age on 01.04.2016 will not get the benefit of re-
appointment as well as the employees dismissed for more than three
times, will not be re-appointed under the scheme.
8. It is the stand of the MSRTC that such scheme is introduced to
give financial support to the families of the employees / conductors
who are involved in the enquiries or who faced suspension or
dismissal so that they may get one chance in their life to begin new
chapter.
9. We have heard Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned counsel
appointed as amicus curiae for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Patil, learned
Addl. G.P. for respondent No.1/ State and Mr. V.D. Sapkal, learned
Senior Counsel i/b Mr. S.R. Sapkalr, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
6 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
10. We have studied the scheme tried to be launched by the
MSRTC vide Circular No.25 of 2016 dated 06.08.2016.
11. Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently submitted that the scheme introduced by the MSRTC is
against the public policy. It is also against the public interest. So
called family protection scheme / "Kutumb Surksha Yojana" sought to
be introduced by the MSRTC is nothing but an attempt to give go by
to the legal process. The procedure adopted by the MSRTC by way of
Circular to re-appoint suspended / dismissed employees is unknown
to law. He submitted that the impugned scheme is apparently against
the public interest since a person carrying stigmatic character and
already placed under suspension or dismissal from service on account
of mis-appropriation of funds of the MSRTC and not to be given any
sympathetic treatment by colour of rehabilitation of his family under
the purported scheme of "Kutumb Suraksha Yojana". Such an
approach of showing sympathy towards the wrong doors at the cost of
public at large cannot be digested. The impugned scheme is nothing
but giving re-appointment to the conductors who have been
suspended or dismissed on account of charges of mis-appropriation of
funds of MSRTC by giving back door entry. The impugned Circular is
7 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
in contravention of public interest and policy. It clearly amounts to
giving price or reward to an employee who has been suspended or
dismissed from services on account of mis-appropriation of funds. It is
some what novel idea tried to be introduced by the MSRTC against
the settled provisions of law. The impugned scheme is against the
Constitutional provisions. Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned amicus curiae
urged to quash the impugned Circular / scheme since it is against the
public policy and it contravene the settle legal principles.
12. Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned amicus curiae has placed his
reliance on the following stock of citations in support of his argument.
(i) State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others
reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130.
(ii) State of Orissa Vs. Bimalkumar Mohanty reported in (1994) 4
SCC 126.
(iii) Jaskaran Singh Brar Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2005 (3)
SLJ 354.
(iv) Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National
Bank reported in (2010) 8 SCC 573.
13. Per contra, Mr. Sapkal, learned Senior Counsel supported the
Circular / impugned Scheme. Mr. Sapkal submitted that the Public
Interest Litigation in service matters cannot be entertained. The
impugned Circular is in between the MSRTC and its employees. There
8 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
is no public interest involved. The MSRTC in its meeting of Board of
Directors has taken a policy decision on 01.04.2016, by taking into
consideration all the pros and cons. Accordingly, the scheme has been
launched by Circular No.25 of 2016 dated 06.08.2016 and introduced
the scheme as "Kutumb Suraksha Yojana". It is an attempt to give re-
employment to the conductors who are involved in the departmental
enquiry or who have been suspended or dismissed due to several
mistakes committed while discharging theirduty. Their family
members are the most sufferers. By considering all these aspects, the
scheme has been introduced by the MSRTC. The MSRTC has launched
the said scheme to safeguard the fundamental rights of its employees
which are conferred on them by Article 14, 16 and 19 of the
Constitution of India. He submitted that the impugned Circular issued
by the MSRTC is not to bestow luxury on its employees but by way of
humanitarian ground and in order to rehabilitate the family of the
employees who are victims of the circumstances, such a scheme is
launched.
14. Mr. Sapkal, learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on
following decisions in support of his submissions.
(i) Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. Sate of Maharashtra and others
reported in 2005 AIR SCW 46 SC.
9 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
(ii) Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others reported
in AIR 2010 SC 3515
15. We have considered the arguments advanced by Mr.
Gangakhedkar, the learned amicus curiae and Mr. Sapkal, learned
Senior Counsel.
16. The Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used
with great care and caution. It is to be used as an effective weapon in
the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. It should
be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and
not publicity oriented or based on personal vendetta. It is the duty of
the Court to see that a persons approaches the court by way of public
interest litigation is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or
private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations.
17. In case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra
reported in AIR 1999SC 114, it is ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the Public Interest Litigation should not be entertained involving
service matters. The same view find place in case of Dattaraj Nathuji
Thaware Vs. Sate of Maharashtra and others (supra).
18. In case of Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others
(supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in Public
Interest Litigation involving service matters, the Public Interest
10 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
Litigation is not maintainable except for issuance of writ of quo
warranto.
19. In case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and
others (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in service
matters, the role of the Court is to ensure rule of law and to see that
executive acts fairly.
20. In case of State of Orrisa Vs. Bimbalkumar Mohanty (supra), it
is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"Normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary
authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or
contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave
charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious
acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension
would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity
of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated
and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing
authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary
authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority
should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is
expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending
aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative
routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It
should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged
misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the
delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must
consider each case on its own facts and no general law
could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a
punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an
employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by
him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further
11 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to
remove the impression among the members of service that
dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending
employee could get away even pending inquiry without any
impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent
officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over
the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity
in office to impede the progress of the investigation or
inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be
considered depending on the nature of the allegations,
gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates
on the service for the continuance of the delinquent
employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated
inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the
action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior
purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the
ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority
also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of
the delinquent's continuance in office while facing
departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
21. In case of Jaskaran Singh Brar Vs. State of Punjab (supra), the
allegations of fraud in public employment centrestaged on the
"procedure and mechanism" adopted by the State of Punjab in the
wholesome selection of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) from
"Outstanding Sports Persons", can be a subject matter of public
interest litigation, the legality and propriety of these selections was
raised in writ petition along with the public interest litigation. The
Punjab nd Haryana High Court was pleased to entertain that those
petitions and issued certain directions to the State of Punjab.
12 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
22. In case of Sushilkumar Singhal Vs. Regional Manager, Punjab
National Bank (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in
Service Law, conviction of a person in crime involving moral
turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have
indulged in a shameful, wicked and base activity such an employee
cannot be directed to be reinstated in service.
23. In case of National Association of Blind Vs. Bombay Municipal
Corporation reported in 2020 SCC Online Bom 2032, the Division
Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Bombay has laid down the
following tests after having gone through the various authorities. The
tests to entertain the Public Interest Litigation, are as under:
"(a) that, the PIL petition is not a camouflage to foster
personal disputes;
(b) that, behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an
ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity
seeking is not lurking;
(c) that, the PIL petition is not intended to besmirch the
character of others;
(d) that, the information given in the PIL petition is
sufficient to show the gravity and seriousness involved;
and
13 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
(e) that, the PIL petition is not mischievous seeking to
assail an executive action for oblique motives.
24. The Division Bench of this Court while hearing the writ petition
No.10038 of 2016 (Sharad Baburao Pote and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another) prima facie noticed that the scheme
launched by the MSRTC to re-appoint the suspended or terminated
conductors under the scheme "Kutumb Suraksha Yojana" is against
the public interest and directed to initiate Suo Moto Public Interest
Litigation to consider notification in question. In that background, it is
difficult to accept the argument advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel that the instant Public Interest Litigation relating to service
matter is not maintainable.
25. It is tried to be canvassed before us that for the welfare of the
family members of suspended or dismissed conductors of the MSRTC,
the impugned scheme is launched. It is by way of rehabilitation of
suspended / dismissed conductors and their families. It is for their
welfare and to protect their fundamental rights. We are not impressed
by such argument. The MSRTC is run and controlled by the State of
Maharashtra. The Corporation is rendering its services to the public at
large. The policy decisions taken by the State Government from time
to time are also applicable to the MSRTC.
14 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
26. There cannot be debate that welfare of the employees is to be
protected by the employer. At the same time, whatever policy decision
is to be taken, it must be in consonance with the rules and regulations
and should be reasonable and not irrational. The decision or the
policy should not be against the public interest, which may hamper
generation of employment.
27. There are various State and Central Laws which takes care of
welfare of labours. For example, Factories Act, Industrial Disputes
Act, Workmen Compensation Act etc. The purpose of Labour
Legislation is to protect legal rights of Labour. Labour Legislation that
is adapted to the economic and social challenges at the modern world
of work fulfills three crucial roles:
(a) It establishes a legal system that facilitates productive
individual and collective employment relationship and therefore a
productive economy.
(b) By providing a frame work within which employers, workers
and their representatives can interact with regard to work related
issues, it serves as an important vehicle for achieving harmonious
industrial relations based on workplace democracy.
15 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
(c) It provides a clear and constant reminder and guarantee of
fundamental principles and rights at work which have received broad
social acceptance and establishes the processes through which these
principles and rights can be implemented and enforced.
28. We have carefully studied the impugned scheme. The MSRTC
has its own procedure for taking action against its employees, viz. the
procedure for Discipline and Appeals. Various punishments are
provided against the employee involved in acts of misappropriation,
including suspension or removal from the service. However, in view
of the new scheme, even if a Conductor is found guilty in a case of
misappropriation, instead of suspending or dismissing him, provision
is made to recover the amount of fifty times of the misappropriated
amount, but that amount should be atleast Rs.5,000/-. The scheme
further speaks that if that Conductor repeats the said act, then an
amount of seventy five times of misappropriated amount be recovered
from him. Similar kind of provisions are made in the said scheme
and instead of taking action against the Conductors as per procedure
of discipline and appeals, the Conductors are allowed to be re-
appointed/reinstated in view of the scheme by recovering the
misappropriated amount from them.
16 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
29. The impugned scheme appears to be unique and novel which
has indirectly given go-bye to the legal procedure. It is well settled
position of law that if the law requires that a particular thing is to be
done in a particular way, it should be done in the same way and not
by any other way. If a conductor is found guilty in a case of
misappropriation, he must be dealt with according to the discipline
and conduct procedure of the MSRTC. Whatever legal action is
contemplated under the procedure must be adhered to.
30. The MSRTC is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. The service conditions of the employees of the
MSRTC are strictly applicable. The MSRTC is under control of the
State of Maharashtra. The State also provides financial support and
aid whenever MSRTC faces financial problems. Certainly, the MSRTC
has a duty to act reasonably and fairly so as not to infringe the
provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The
MSRTC being a State instrumentality is required to take policy
decision as per the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant
Rules and Regulations. Every action of the MSRTC must satisfy the
test and standard of reasonableness. The decision of the administrator
must be within four corners of the law, and not one which no sensible
person could have reasonably arrived at having regard to the principle
17 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
of reasonableness. The action must be bona fide and not tainted or
prompted by any irrelevant or extraneous considerations. So long as
these tests are satisfied, it is not open to the Courts to interfere with
the discretion exercised by the Corporation. Equally, whenever
MSRTC fails to satisfy the test and standard of reasonableness, it is for
the Courts to interfere with such policy decisions by way of judicial
review. The executive decision/policy decision taken by the MSRTC
must be according to well settled principles of law and must be in
consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. The
MSRTC has come out with an object for reinstatement of its
suspended/dismissed Conductors found guilty in cases of
misappropriation. The object behind the scheme appears to be not
bona fide. The impugned scheme appears to be an example of abuse
of powers. The Corporation has exercised its executive powers by
violating the Constitutional provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 19 and
MSRTC procedure and Regulations under the guise of reformation
and welfare of families of the Conductors, who have been suspended/
dismissed in cases of misappropriation. We do not find any rational
behind it.
31. In case of The State Financial Corporation and anr., Vs. M/s
Jagdamba Oil Mills and ors., reported in AIR 2002 SC 834, it is held
18 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
by the Honourable Supreme Court that it is obligatory on the part of
authorities to act fairly. The obligation to act fairly was evolved to
ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. In case on
hand, MSRTC is a Corporation and not a private limited company.
The MSRTC is rendering its service of transportation to the public at
large and is controlled by the State Government. Where the MSRTC
is dealing with the public, it cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will. Its
action must be in conformity with the standards or norms, which is
rational. Justice and fairness and State action is essence of Article 14
of the Constitution of India and State instrumentality like MSRTC
should satisfy that requirement.
32. The Conductors who are found guilty in cases of
misappropriation and other charges attempted to be re-appointed or
reinstated under the impugned scheme has no rational. The
impugned decision does not pass the test of reasonableness and
fairness. The impugned decision is arbitrary and excessive use of
discretionary powers vested with the authority. If the impugned
scheme is allowed to be implemented, it may result in chaos. It may
snatch employment of thousands who are prospering for the jobs in
MSRTC. Thousands of unemployed youths are in the State who are in
the queue for employment in the MSRTC for the posts of Conductor.
19 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
The MSRTC instead of giving an opportunity to the prospering
candidates, who have better prospects and future, attempted to
introduce the impugned scheme, which is certainly against the policy
of generation of employment and violative of Article 16. It is against
the State policy and public interest at large. It is not a question
between an employee and a private limited company. The MSRTC is a
colossal Corporation run and controlled by the State Government for
the benefit of public at large. Certainly, the public interest must be
protected. The Conductor who is involved in a case involving moral
turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have
indulged in a shameful, wicked and base activity cannot be re-
employed and re-instated. The Corporation which serves public at
large, there must be transparency in decisions of a Corporation and
those decisions must pass the standard test of reasonableness and test
of rational coupled with legal principles. The policy decision should
not be against the State policy which contravenes Constitutional
provisions.
33. The impugned scheme is attempted to be introduced under the
colour of welfare of families of suspended / terminated / dismissed
conductors and to reduce the burden of litigation costs. No details are
given by the MSRTC in its affidavit. How much they are spending per
20 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
year on litigation expenses, how many matters are pending in Labour
Courts, Industrial Tribunals and other Courts. What steps they have
taken to expedite those matters and reduce the litigation. No details
are forthcoming. Mere vague statement is made in affidavit sworn by
the Managing Director of MSRTC to that effect and that can hardly be
the consideration.
34. What is welfare of employees and their families. Welfare
comprises of anything that is done for the comfort and improvement
of employees and it is provided over and above wages. Welfare
measures consist of intra mural welfare, extra mural welfare, social
security schemes and work environment. The purpose of providing
labour welfare measures is to keep the employees comfortable work
life. Labour welfare can be used as a strategy to improve job
performance. This adds to establish the impact of welfare measure on
the job performance of the employees of the organization.
Reappointment of suspended / dismissed conductors who are
involved in misappropriation cases cannot be termed as welfare act. If
this is allowed, it would be bad precedent and may affect adversely in
maintaining discipline in the institution. We do not find any rational
or common sense in introducing such kind of scheme.
21 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
35. The employees who are proven guilty in cases of
misappropriation, whose conduct and behaviour is found against the
interest of the institution, the employees who are proved to be
dishonest, such employees are tried to be reinstated in the
Corporation. The ordinary person would not even think of it. If such
corrupt and dishonest people are reappointed and reinstated in the
Corporation, it would be rewarding them for such dishonest work. In
fact they ought to be punished according to the Corporation
disciplinary procedure and guidelines. What an ordinary man would
think if such corrupt people are again reinstated in the Corporation.
They may say that Corporation is reappointing the corrupt persons to
allow them to continue corrupt practices and repeat conduct of
misappropriation. The corrupt employees need to be treated with iron
hands so that the employees of like minded may not commit such acts
of misappropriation. The Corporation must adhere to its discipline,
procedure and guidelines and not to give them ceremonial send off by
introducing such novel and unique scheme, which may adversely
affect the Corporation.
36. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion and after
studying the impugned scheme, we have no manner of doubt that
impugned scheme/decision/circular is against the public policy and
22 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
public interest at large. The impugned decision is nothing but abuse
of powers. The impugned decision is arbitrary and violative of well
settled principles of Labour Laws and employment and equally, it
violates Constitutional provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 19. The
impugned decision if allowed to continue, bad signal would reach in
the society that the persons/Conductors who are involved in cases of
misappropriation are being reemployed/reinstated in the Corporation.
This cannot be allowed in the welfare State. It is necessary to struck
down the impugned policy by looking to the public interest at large
and generation of employment. The impugned scheme is violative of
Constitutional provisions and as such, must be thrown in the dust-bin.
However, those who have already been granted benefit of this scheme
earlier may not be disturbed.
37. With these reasons, we conclude and proceed to pass the
following order :
ORDER
(i) The Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned scheme known as 'Kutumb Suraksha Yojana'
bearing No.25/2016 dated 6.8.2016 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(iii) The Registrar (Judicial) to forward copy of this judgment
and order to the Managing Director, M.S.R.T.C., Mumbai
for information and further necessary action.
23 of 24
01-17 PIL (Jt.)
(iv) Fees of Mr S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned Counsel appointed
as Amicus Curiae is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) and the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Sub-Committee at Aurangabad shall pay the above
quantified fees to learned Counsel Mr S.S. Gangakhedkar.
38. Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of in above
terms.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
S.P. Rane
39 Mr. Gangakhedkar, the learned advocate graciously submits
that the fees be remitted to the Government Medical College and
Hospital, Aurangabad.
40. We appreciate the gesture of Mr. Gangakhedkar, the learned
advocate. The said fees be remitted to the Government Medical
College and Hospital, Aurangabad.
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
S.P. Rane
24 of 24
