Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Vithalrao Gomase vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 33wp7626.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7626 OF 2017
Vijay Vitthalrao Gomase __ Vs. __M.S.R.T.C
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C.V.Jagdale, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S.R.Charpe, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 03/04/2023
1] Heard Mr. Jagdale, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Charpe, learned counsel for
the respondent.
2] The petition challenges the order dated
8.10.2014 on the preliminary issue regarding
fairness of inquiry, in accordance with the principles
of natural justice and whether the findings drawn by
the Enquiry Officer are perverse and which have
been held to be in favour of the petitioner (pg. 37);
the complaint thereafter has been dismissed by the
judgment dated 6.2.2017 (pg.52) and so also the
enquiry report dated 19.1.2010 (pg.13) finding the
petitioner guilty.
3] The contention is that the findings are
vitiated on account of the fact that there is no
(2) 33wp7626.17
material witness examined to prove the charge and
therefore, the impugned report, finding on
preliminary issue and judgment cannot be sustained.
4] Mr. Charpe, learned counsel for the
respondent supports the impugned order and the
judgment.
5] The facts of the case indicates that the
petitioner was charged with negligence in his duties
on account of the bus which he was driving on
11.9.2006 having met with an accident. Though the
reporter was examined during the course of the
enquiry, it is material to note that the reporter is
admittedly not an eye-witness to the incident.
6] In MSRTC vrs Rajendra Mohanlal
Chhangani, 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 515, while considering
the similar position, it has been held that for
bringing home the plea of negligence and therefor
the guilt of the employee, it was necessary that an
independent witness who had witnessed the incident
was necessary to have been examined. In the instant
case, admittedly apart from the reporter, who was
not the eye-witness, no body has been examined,
and therefore, the issue regarding the perversity of
the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer which
(3) 33wp7626.17
was framed as a preliminary issue could not have
been answered in the affirmative against the
employee. It is material to note that in view of the
recording of the finding on this ground in favour of
the respondent, no opportunity was granted to the
respondent to examine any independent witnesses
before the learned Industrial Court in the complaint
filed by the petitioner.
7] Since I have held that the finding of the
Enquiry Officer is perverse, it would be necessary to
set aside the finding on preliminary enquiry dated
8.10.2014 in this regard and also the consequent
judgment dated 6.2.2017 and which is accordingly
so done. The matter is remitted back to the learned
Industrial Court so as to afford an opportunity to the
respondent to examine witnesses to prove the guilt
of the petitioner/complaint.
8] The petition is accordingly allowed in
above terms. No cost.
9] The parties shall appear before the
learned Industrial Court on 17.4.2023.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
