Vijay S/O Wanuji Madavi vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13079 Bom

1/4                                                                           24.wp.3532.2018.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3532 OF 2018
  (Vijay Wanuji Madavi V/s Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chandrapur & Ors.)

Office   Notes,    Office                         Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances,      court's
orders or directions and
Prothonotary's orders


                                       Mr. Abdul Subhan, Advocate for Petitioner.
                                       Mr. V. H. Kedar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to
                                       3.
                                                          ------

                                       CORAM      : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                                       DATE       : SEPTEMBER 14, 2021.

                 .                Heard Mr. Subhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner

and Mr. Kedar, learned Counsel for Respondents.

2. The Petition challenges the termination of the Petitioner by the order dated 4/8/2014. The ground of termination has been stated to have been excess amount found with the Petitioner, when the inspection was conducted of the bus on 17/10/2008, when it stopped at Tumnur Tola. The order of termination came to be challenged before the Labour Court, Chandrapur vide ULP No.129/2014. The learned Labour Court, by its Judgment dated 5/10/2015, by considering the findings rendered in the earlier proceedings namely, ULP No.43/2009 decided on 31/7/2014, holding that the proposed punishment of

2/4 24.wp.3532.2018.odt

dismissal shown in the show cause notice dated 7/7/2009 was proportionate and a fair enquiry was conducted, and further considering that there were as many as 45 instances, in which the complainant had committed various types of misconduct relating to the performance of his service and every time he was punished, dismissed the complaint. A Revision against the same being Revision No.7/2016 also came to be dismissed on 18/8/2017 which held that in view of the past conduct of the Petitioner, it could not be held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate.

3. Mr. Subhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, that the earlier misdemeanors ought not to have been considered by the courts below while determining the issue of grant of punishment. He further submits that the punishment of dismissal, was shockingly disproportionate vis-a-vis the nature of offence. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside on these grounds.

4. Mr. Kedar, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits, that there cannot be any dispute that the enquiry was fair and proper, in view of the findings as rendered in ULP No.43/2009 decided on 23/3/2010. He further invites my attention to Annexure-R-1, which is a list of misconducts by the present Petitioner, which was recorded in default chart maintained by the department, which formed a part and parcel

3/4 24.wp.3532.2018.odt

of the proceedings before the lower courts, and therefore, submits that the findings are proper and ought not to be disturbed.

5. In ULP No.43/2009 decided on 23/3/2010, the issue about fairness of the enquiry was specifically considered and decided, and therefore, in my considered opinion, it is no longer open to challenge. It is admitted position, as recorded by both the courts below, that there are as many as 45 instances of misconduct attributed to the Petitioner. The default chart placed on record, list as many as 76 defaults, out of which, 45 are of a similar nature, which has found the basis of the termination. The finding has been rendered that on the fateful day, the Petitioner was found to possess excess amount than what was chargeable to the passengers in the bus. The gravity of the misconduct is not reduced by the quantum of the amount. A delinquent cannot be heard to say that merely because the quantum was less, he would not be entitled to a particular punishment, which has been imposed for the reason that a misconduct on account of misappropriation remains a serious issue, which has to be dealt with an iron hand. In the instant case, the misconduct, for which the order of dismissal has been issued, is preceded by 45 such earlier misconducts, and therefore, the contention that the punishment was disproportionate is now no longer open to be raised.

4/4 24.wp.3532.2018.odt

6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present Petition. Order passed by the both the courts below are well reasoned and take into account in a proper perspective a position, which has come on record, in the background of the law as applicable. The Petition, is therefore, dismissed. No costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Yadav VG