Bombay High Court
Muzaffar Khan Zamir Khan vs Divn. Controller, M.S.R.T.C. ... on 31 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, G. A. Sanap
206-LPA-184-11 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.184 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4059 OF 2008
Muzaffar Khan Zamir Khan, Mominpura, Ner Nawarpur, Malkapur Dist. Buldhana
-vs-
The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Buldhana Division, Buldhana and anr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri B. M. Khan, Advocate for appellant.
Shri V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for respondents absent.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : August 31, 2021
The challenge raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is to
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19/03/2009 in
Writ Petition No.4059/2008. By the said judgment the
aforesaid writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging
the dismissal of the complaint filed by him has been upheld.
2. The appellant was engaged as a Conductor with the
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC)-
respondents. On 26/01/2000 when he was on duty his bus was
checked and it was found that there were about 75 passengers
in that bus. Six of them however had tickets which were re-
issued to them. The checking squad recorded the statements of
the passengers. Thereafter in the light of report submitted by
the Traffic Inspector a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant.
The charges framed were that the appellant had sold six used
tickets to the passengers and that he had misappropriated an
amount of Rs.98/- which was found short at the time of
206-LPA-184-11 2/5
inspection. After holding an enquiry, a show-cause notice was
issued to the appellant seeking to dismiss him from service. In
absence of any satisfactory explanation, the order of dismissal
dated 12/02/2001 was issued.
3. The appellant challenged the order of dismissal by filing
complaint before the Labour Court. The Labour Court recorded
a finding that the enquiry as held was fair and proper. Due
opportunity was given to the appellant during the enquiry. It
was then found that the misconduct as alleged was proved in
the enquiry and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer
were not perverse. The learned Judge of the Labour Court held
that the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly
disproportionate. By the order dated 14/05/2002 the
complaint came to be dismissed.
The Industrial Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
by its judgment dated 13/09/2007 affirmed the findings
recorded by the Labour Court. In addition it observed that on
11 earlier occasions the appellant had been punished for similar
misconduct. The revision application was accordingly
dismissed.
4. The appellant being aggrieved filed Writ Petition
No.4059/2008. The learned Single Judge after considering the
entire material on record by judgment dated 19/03/2009
refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction thus dismissing the same.
Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present Letters
Patent Appeal.
206-LPA-184-11 3/5
5. Shri B. M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the six passengers who had been issued tickets
that were used were not examined in the enquiry proceedings
as a result the appellant did not have any opportunity to cross-
examine those passengers. Placing reliance on the decision in
A. P. S. R. T. C Rep. By Depot Manager vs. G. Murali 2018 (12) SCC
41 it was submitted that in absence of evidence of those
witnesses the charges could not be stated to be proved. He
further submitted that the show-cause notice was issued to the
appellant on 08/02/2001 and less than 48 hours were given for
filing reply to the same. No adequate opportunity therefore
was available to the appellant to defend his case. According to
the learned counsel despite supplying copy of the interim order
passed by the Industrial Court on 13/02/2001 the Corporation
proceeded to hastily pass the order of dismissal. It was urged
that considering the past service record of the appellant the
punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate.
Reliance was placed on the decision in Pramod Kumar Singh
Sishodia vs. State of U P and ors. 2017 (3) LLJ 492 . It is thus
submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside
and the appellant ought to be reinstated in service.
6. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondents
yesterday. Hence the matter was kept today by granting further
opportunity. However there is no appearance on behalf of the
respondents. Accordingly we have heard the learned counsel
for the appellant and we have also perused the material on
record. It is seen that Labour Court after considering the entire
records of the enquiry proceedings has held that the same was
206-LPA-184-11 4/5
conducted in a fair and proper manner by giving due
opportunity to the appellant. The findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer were not shown to be perverse. This finding has
been affirmed by the Industrial Court and then by the learned
Single Judge. The absence of examination of six passengers
who were re-issued the tickets has been considered by the
learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment.
Reliance has been placed on the decision in State of Haryana and
anr. vs. Rattan Singh AIR 1977 SC 1512. We find that reliance has
been rightly placed on the aforesaid decision. When there was
other material on record that supported the conclusion that
misconduct as has been duly proved, absence of examination of
six passengers would not make much difference. We do not
find any reason to take a different view of the matter. Hence
the decision in G. Murali (supra) cannot be made applicable to
the facts of the present case. The aspect as to short period for
filing reply and due opportunity to respond to the charges had
been considered by the Labour Court. It has been found that
the appellant effectively participated in enquiry proceedings and
the Corporation succeeded in proving the charges. These
findings having been confirmed by two Courts, the scope for
interference in that regard is minimal in the absence of any
jurisdictional error.
7. We thus find that the Labour Court and thereafter the
Industrial Court has after verifying the entire record
proceeded to adjudicate the proceedings and refused relief to
the appellant. The contentions raised also did not find favour
with the learned Single Judge. We do not find any ground
206-LPA-184-11 5/5
made out to interfere with the aforesaid adjudication in the
present proceedings. For aforesaid reasons there is no merit in
the Letters Patent Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
