[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Sadashiv Namdeo Thorat on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2316
1 WP / 13471 / 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13471 OF 2023
1. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Parbhani Division, Through its
Divisional Controller,
At Post Taluka & District - Parbhani
2. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Parbhani Division
Though its Divisional Traffic
Superintendent (default), Parbhani .. Petitioners
(Orig. Respondents)
Versus
Sadashiv S/o Namdeo Thorat
Age - 34 years, Occupation - Ex-ST Conductor
Bearing Badge No. 1452,
MSRTC Parbhani Division
District Parbhani
R/at : Sawad Tq. & Dist. - Hingoli .. Respondent
(Orig. Complainant)
...
Advocate for petitioners : Mr. Anand D. Wange
Advocate for the respondent : Mr. Mukund Ambedkar and Mr. S.P. Kausalge
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16 JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 20 JANUARY 2026
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner assails the order
passed by the Industrial Court, Jalna in Revision ULP no. 55 of 2022
dated 20.01.2023, whereby the revision filed by the respondent -
employee came to be allowed and the Industrial Court set aside the
2 WP / 13471 / 2023
order of dismissal passed by the petitioner and directed to reinstate the
complainant with continuity in service.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he was working as a
conductor at S.T. Depot, Hingoli. He had applied for the post of
conductor in Nanded and at Parbhani division. He was selected in both
the divisions. The complainant, after medical examination was issued
appointment order, at Parbhani, on 29/08/2011. He joined at Parbhani
division and then was transferred to Hingoli district on 25/07/2022. He
came across another person serving in Nanded division and posted at
Mahur depot having same badge number (i.e. 14521) as that of the
complainant. The complainant immediately informed about the said fact
to Depot Manager. The respondents in their written statement had
denied the contentions of the complainant and submitted that Sunil
Jagtap and the complainant are relatives and therefore the complainant
helped him by giving his documents. The complainant was charge-
sheeted and was dismissed from the service after holding
Departmental Enquiry.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed
Complaint (ULP) no. 47 of 2014 before the Labour Court, Nanded
which came to be dismissed on 21.01.2022 by holding that the
misconduct was proved and charges under Rule 22, 29(A) and 51 of
the Discipline and Appeal rules were also proved and, therefore, the
complaint was dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent - employee
filed a Revision (ULP) No. 55 of 2022 under section 44 of the MRTU
and PULP Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court, Jalna which was
allowed thereby setting aside the dismissal order.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - Corporation
has filed the present petition.
3 WP / 13471 / 2023
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. A.D. Wange
and Mr. Mukund Ambedkar, learned counsel with Mr. S.P. Kausalge,
learned counsel for the respondent.
8. Having gone through the order passed by the Industrial
Court, Jalna, it transpires that person namely, Sunil Trimbak Jagtap
was related to the complainant. On 25.07.2012, it was noticed that one
Conductor working with Mahur Depot was having the same badge no.
14521 as that of the complainant and when this fact was noticed by the
Depot Manager, he issued notice to the complainant. Pursuant thereto,
departmental enquiry was conducted and it was proved before the
Enquiry Officer - Mr. Bhosle that one Sunil Trimbak Jagtap had
obtained appointment with the help of the complainant.
The matter was investigated by the Vigilance Officer and it
was found that one Shri. Sunil Trimbak Jagtap has joined at Nanded
depot by impersonating the complainant. It was also noticed that the
complainant and Sunil Jagtap were relatives and that in connivance
with the complainant, Sunil Jagtap joined the services as Conductor.
The complainant was charge-sheeted and domestic enquiry was
conducted. The complainant challenged the enquiry by disputing the
contentions of the respondents. After holding enquiry, he was
dismissed from the service vide order dated 13/12/2004. The
complainant has challenged the enquiry before the Labour Court.
9. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the
complainant took disadvantage and helped his relative Sunil Jagpap to
appear for medical examination in his place. Said Sunil Jagtap
personified himself to be Sadashiv Thorat and joined the duties at
Nanded division.
10. Therefore, it is a case of impersonation. Enquiry Officer
has recorded that that Sunil Jagtap was a relative of the complainant.
4 WP / 13471 / 2023
Though the complainant later denied that Sunil Jagtap was his relative
but he has admitted in his cross-examination before the Labour Court,
Nanded that mother of Sunil Jagtap was residing in his village and the
aunt of Sunil Jagtap was his relative. Therefore, the respondent
intentionally and unlawfully assisted Sunil Jagtap to accept the services
in his name as Conductor on the same badge number which amounts
to fraud. It is settled law that fraud vitiates every solemn act.
11. By taking disadvantage of selection at two different
divisions, the respondent / complainant in collusion with Sunil Jagtap
committed fraud and obtained appointment for Sunil Jagtap on the post
of Conductor. All these facts were established and proved in the
departmental enquiry and the same were also confirmed by the learned
Labour Court, Nanded after leading evidence by both the sides.
Therefore, the Industrial Court ought not have interferred with the order
of the learned Labour Court, Nanded. Therefore, I am inclined to allow
the writ petition by setting the order passed by the learned Industrial
Court, Jalna. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
I] The writ petition is allowed.
II] The order passed by the Industrial Court, Jalna in
Revision ULP no. 55 of 2022 dated 20.01.2023, is
quashed and set aside.
12. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
arp/
