Bombay High Court
Shri. Babaji Shankar Gadhave vs The Divisional Traffice ... on 30 September, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:41508
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14239 OF 2018
Shri. Babaji Shankar Gadhave .. Petitioner
Versus
The Divisional Traffic Superintendent MSRTC,
Pune .. Respondent
....................
Mr A.S. Rao, Advocate for Petitioner.
M. Nitesh Bhutekar a/w Ms. Priyesha Patel, Advocates for
Respondent.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.
Bhutekar, learned Advocate for Respondent.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed by Petitioner challenging
Judgment 03.12.2018 passed by Industrial Court, Pune in Revision
Application (ULP) No.143 of 2018. The judgment dated 03.12.2018 is
appended below Exhibit 'H' below at page No. - 79.
3. Briefly stated, Petitioner was permanently employed by
Respondent as Conductor since 1993 on salary of Rs.7,000/- per
month. On 02.11.2003, Petitioner was on duty and posted at Chas -
Ghodegaon - Manchar route. Petitioner issued tickets to passengers as
per rate applicable to their destination. The bus stopped at Manchar
1 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
for spot check where inspection team noticed that Petitioner issued a
ticket fare of Rs.11/- collectively to two passengers however he took
Rs.16/- from the passengers thereby pocketing Rs.5/- extra and further
inspection showed that at the destination depot, he deposited ticket
fares of Rs.44/- less.
3.1. Chargesheet dated 04.11.2003 was served upon Petitioner
and he filed his reply to the same. Respondent conducted disciplinary
enquiry against Petitioner and found him guilty of all charges. Show
Cause Notice dated 27.05.2008 was issued to Petitioner to show cause
as to why he should not be dismissed from service.
3.2. On 02.06.2008 Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 51 of
2008 in Labour Court Pune, under Section 28 read with Item No.1(a),
(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) under Schedule 4 of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971 (for short "MRTU & PULP Act") seeking cancellation of show
cause notice dated 27.05.2008, permanent injunction restraining
Respondent from terminating Petitioner's services and quashing of
chargesheet dated 04.11.2003.
3.3. On 02.06.2008, ad-interim relief was granted to Petitioner
till 11.06.2008 when Respondent was to appear before Labour Court.
On 22.01.2018 interim order was passed by Labour Court confirming
findings of inquiry officer. Compliant came to be dismissed by
2 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by Labour Court. Being aggrieved,
Petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 143 of 2018 which was
dismissed by order dated 03.12.2018. Hence present Writ Petition.
4. Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for Petitioner would submit that
Petitioner was a permanent employee for more than 27 years in
Respondent - Corporation. He would submit that Petitioner had an
unblemished service record and no antecedents. He would submit that
chargesheet dated 04.11.2003 is false, frivolous, illegal, contains
fabricated allegations and deserves to be set aside. He would submit
that chargesheet dated 04.11.2003 was served upon Petitioner and he
filed his reply however Respondent did not consider the same. He
would submit that Petitioner was suspended for one month until
Labour Court passed interim order granting ad-interim relief to him,
hence Petitioner was reinstated and continued in Respondent's service.
4.1. He would submit that Divisional Traffic Superintendent
was the officer who conducted disciplinary inquiry against Petitioner
and he also was the same officer who issued show cause notice with no
presenting officer available for Respondent hence there was an utter
disregard for the principles of natural justice. He would submit that in
this regard, inquiry officer cannot act as presenting officer, hence
enquiry against Petitioner is vitiated and conducted in violation of
principles of natural justice.
3 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
4.2. He would submit that on 02.11.2003 when Petitioner was on
duty, all passengers purchased tickets in the bus and no passenger was
left out. He would submit that inspection team took statements from
illiterate passengers who were subjected to undue pressure to prove
that Petitioner has misappropriated Rs.5/-. He would submit that
lower Courts summarily examined the evidence before them and did
not consider Petitioner's denial of the incident.
4.3. He would submit that lower forums have erroneously
recorded that Petitioner admitted to the charges of misappropriation.
He would submit that tickets of wrong denominations were given to
wrong passengers, that there was no intention of Petitioner to commit
such an error and that Petitioner had clarified his mistake in issuing
tickets and he informed to the inspection team. He would submit that
the punishment of dismissal meted out to Petitioner was completely
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He would submit that
though there is allegation of misappropriation of Rs.5/- by the
Petitioner, but the same is contrary to the final amount deposited by
him when Petitioner was found with Rs. 44/- less. Hence he would
submit that the charge of misappropriation cannot be proved and it
cannot be alleged that Petitioner misappropriated Rs.5/- which he is
removed from service.
5. Mr. Bhutekar, learned Advocate for Respondent would
4 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
submit that impugned order is tenable in law, suffers from no
infirmities, it is legal and passed with complete application of mind
while considering evidence on record. He would submit that Petitioner
was posted at Rajgurunagar Depot and was working as Conductor with
Respondent.
5.1. He would submit that Respondent had a history of
misconduct and his service record is not clean and unblemished as
claimed. He would submit that Petitioner was punished for misconduct
in the year 1994 for incomplete way bill, two times between 1995 to
1996 for not issuing tickets to passengers, four times between the same
period for depositing deficit ticket fares at the depot and in 2003 for
not issuing ticket and 10 times for absenteeism. He would submit that
in 2012 Petitioner again misappropriated funds for which he was
punished. He would submit that Petitioner was duly punished for these
offenses by fines and temporary stoppage of increment. He would
submit that sufficient opportunity was given to Petitioner to improve
hence the punishment meted out to Petitioner was appropriate.
5.2. He would submit that Divisional Traffic Superintendent is
the competent authority as per Schedules 'C' and 'D' Discipline and
Appeal Procedure of Respondent to take action in such cases. He
would submit that as per the aforementioned Procedure, no
management representative is required to be appointed for
5 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
departmental inquiry. He would submit that competent authority i.e.,
Divisional Traffic Superintendent is empowered to issue chargesheet,
conduct inquiry, issue show cause notice and pass final order hence
there is no illegality or violation of principles of natural justice.
5.3. He would submit that on 02.11.2003, Petitioner was on duty
as Conductor on Chas - Ghodegaon - Manchar route and the bus was
checked at Manchar depot where it was noted that there were 38
passengers and 3 senior citizens traveling in the bus. He would submit
that Petitioner took ticket fare of Rs.16/- but issued tickets of Rs.11/-
hence he misappropriated Rs.5/-. He would submit that Petitioner
issued tickets of Rs.1236/- however he deposited Rs.1192/- hence he
misappropriated Rs.44/-. He would submit that on the basis of
inspection team's report, chargesheet was served upon Petitioner for
offenses committed under Clauses 7(j), 9, 10, 12b and 22 under
Schedule A of Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of Respondent -
Corporation. He would submit that Petitioner filed reply to chargsheet
and departmental inquiry commenced against Petitioner.
5.4. He would submit that departmental inquiry was conducted
after affording sufficient opportunity to Petitioner to appear. He would
submit that Petitioner appeared in the inquiry with his union
representative and did not lead evidence. He would submit that
opportunity was given to Petitioner to produce additional statement
6 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
however he did not accept the same. He would submit that findings in
the inquiry were arrived at on the basis of evidence on record, hence
the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and principles of
natural justice.
5.5. He would submit that Petitioner admitted all documents
produced by Respondent during proceedings and did not lead evidence
against these documents, hence Petitioner admitted to charges of
misappropriation of Rs. 5/- and Rs. 44/-. He would submit that inquiry
officer examined oral and documentary evidence on record and was
correct to hold that Petitioner was guilty of misappropriation. He
would submit that the cumulative effect of oral and documentary
evidence on record shows that Petitioner had misappropriated the
aforesaid monies hence inquiry conducted against him, orders passed
by lower courts and impugned order passed by Industrial Court are
tenable in law and deserve to be upheld.
6. I have heard Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for Petitioner and
Mr. Bhutekar, learned Advocate for Respondent and with their able
assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by
learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the
Court.
7. It is seen that Petitioner was employed as a Conductor with
Petitioner since long. On 02.11.2003 while on duty on Chas -
7 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
Ghodegaon - Manchar route, an inspection check was conducted at
Manchar Depot and certain irregularities were found in the ticketing
process. It is seen that Petitioner issued tickets worth Rs.11/- to two
passengers collectively however he collected Rs.16/- from them also
Petitioner deposited Rs.44/- less at Manchar depot. It is seen that on
the basis of inspection report, Respondent served chargsheet dated
04.11.2003 upon Petitioner, merely two days after occurrence of the
incident. It is seen that Respondent issued show cause notice to
Petitioner and inquiry was conducted which found Petitioner guilty of
charges of misconduct and misappropriation and he was subsequently
suspended in pursuance to show cause notice dated 27.05.2008.
8. It is seen that Petitioner agitated his claims before the lower
Courts and by order dated 11.06.2008 passed by Labour Court, he was
granted ad-interim protection from termination. It is seen that on the
basis of the aforementioned order, Petitioner was reinstated by
Respondent and he continued in service. It is seen that Petitioner's
complaint was dismissed by Labour Court and he filed Revision
Application (ULP) No. 143 of 2018 in Industrial Court which also came
to be dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2018 however Petitioner was
protected for 15 days from the date of the said order.
9. It is seen that Petitioner filed present Writ Petition in this
Court which passed order dated 18.12.2018 granting ad-interim relief
8 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
to him, hence he continued in Respondent's service. It is seen that in
2021, during pendency of the present Petition before this Court,
Petitioner reached superannuation and retired from service. Because
pendency of the present Writ Petition, his gratuity amount post
retirement has been withheld.
10. It is seen that issuance of ticket of less denomination cannot
be equated with charge of misappropriation of amount in the absence
of incriminating material against Petitioner or without it being proved
that Petitioner received excess fare and misappropriated the same.
Charge against Petitioner is that he collected Rs. 5 in excess during the
journey but after the raid was carried out and Petitioner was
thoroughly checked for the cash with him vis-a-vis the number of
tickets by him to the passengers in the bus. He would found to be in
shortage of Rs.44/-. Thus shortage of money from Petitioner cannot be
equated to an act of misconduct rather it is a loss to be borne by the
Petitioner. In the absence of no specific allegation Petitioner cannot be
held guilty merely on the claim of he having collected excess cash of
Rs.5/-. Next if Discipline and Appeal Rules as applicable in present
case are considered then there are 68 acts of misconduct prescribed
under Appendix "A" whereas there are 17 acts of misconduct under
Appendix "B". From the two appendices it is seen that finding shortage
of cash amount on the conductor after tally of the number of tickets
issued is not a misconduct listed in either Appendix 'A' or 'B'. In the
9 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
above background, the punishment meted out to Petitioner for the
aforesaid alleged misconduct of removal from service is therefore
disproportionate to the alleged charge. It is therefore seen that all
along Petitioner's services were directed to be continued despite
pendency of the proceedings against him by way of interim orders of
the Court.
11. It is also seen that deposition of Respondent witness is
crucial for alleging misconduct of Petitioner. The inspector who carried
out the raid deposed in cross-examination that for arriving at charge he
prepared his inquiry report but the same lacks details namely full name
and signature of passengers in the bus. It is seen that all details of
tickets issued, cash way form, and way bill No. 3125 / 570960 were
placed as exhibits in evidence. What is crucial in the present case is
that incident is of the year 2003 but the inquiry was closed on
27.11.2003 and show cause notice was issued after 5 years on
27.05.2008. This is unexplained. Another crucial defect seen is that
admittedly inquiry officer has himself taken the evidence namely
examination in chief and cross examination without the Corporation
appointing any management representative to conduct inquiry. Once
this is the position, the said inquiry becomes questionable. There is also
no reason ascribed as to why there is delay in issuance of show cause
notice after more than 5 years. Though it is argued across the bar that
there were past demeanours of Petitioner, however nothing has been
10 of 11
1. WP.14239.2018.doc
proved. There is no element of misappropriation which is placed on
record. The cash way form is placed on record and the way bill is
placed on record and it is found that the cash found on the conductor
is less by Rs.44/- and this militates against the charge of he having
taken amount of Rs. 5/- from the passenger.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons twin orders being order
dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Labour Court and order dated
03.12.2018 passed by the Industrial Court are not sustainable. They
are therefore quashed and set aside. Show cause notice proposing
dismissal of Petitioner dated 27.05.2008 is quashed and set aside.
13. Petition succeeds. Since Petitioner has now retired he will be
entitled to his gratuity and all other dues as applicable to him. It is
informed by Corporation that Petitioner has already received all his
dues except gratuity.
14. In the circumstances, Respondent - Corporation is directed to
pay the gratuity amount, and all other outstanding amounts, if any,
due and payable to Petitioner in lieu of his retirement within a period
of two weeks from today.
15. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.09.30
17:24:02 +0530
11 of 11
