[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dattatray Maharu Patil vs Divisional Controller Maharashtra ... on 27 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3554-DB
1 of 6 88-WP.872.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
88 WRIT PETITION NO. 872 OF 2022
DATTATRAY MAHARU PATIL
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION JALGAON
...
Mr. Sandesh R. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Anagha Vasantrao Rotte, Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 27th JANUARY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the
order dated 05.05.2017 passed below Exhibit O-15 by the learned
Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) No.31 of 2009 and
the order dated 16.11.2019 passed below Exhibit O-4 by the learned
Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bench at Jalgaon in Revision
Application (ULP) No.13 of 2018.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was appointed on a
permanent and vacant post of Conductor with the Respondent-MSRTC
in the year 1986 and had rendered about 23 years of continuous
service. It is submitted that on 17.07.2008, while the Petitioner was on
duty on the route from Amalner to Kapadane, the bus was checked by
2 of 6 88-WP.872.2022.odt
the checking squad. The cash with the Petitioner was tallied with the
MSRTC amount and was found to be correct.
4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was not carrying
the way bill and CWA at the relevant time, as he had inadvertently
forgotten the same on the table of the Assistant Traffic Superintendent
at Amalner. The Petitioner informed the checking squad accordingly. It
is contended that the checking squad did not find any malpractice or
misconduct during the inspection and did not record the statements of
the passengers. After checking the bus, the Petitioner was provided
with a way bill available with the checking squad.
5. It is further submitted that a charge-sheet was issued to the
Petitioner on 24.07.2008 and he was placed under suspension pending
departmental inquiry. During the inquiry, the Petitioner was allegedly
not given an opportunity to cross-examine the passengers. It is
contended that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles
of natural justice and that perverse findings were recorded. On the
basis of the said inquiry, the Petitioner came to be dismissed from
service on 27.10.2009.
6. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the
Labour Court. By order dated 02.05.2011, the Labour Court decided
the preliminary issue regarding the legality, fairness and propriety of
3 of 6 88-WP.872.2022.odt
the inquiry and held that the inquiry was fair, legal and proper.
However, while passing the final order dated 19.05.2012, the Labour
Court, Jalgaon partly allowed the complaint by holding that the
Respondent had committed unfair labour practices and directed
reinstatement of the Petitioner with continuity of service.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent filed
Revision Complaint (ULP) No.72 of 2012, which came to be dismissed.
Thereafter, Writ Petition No.4046 of 2014 was filed before this Court.
This Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to
the Labour Court to decide afresh the issue regarding perversity of the
findings of the Inquiry Officer, without disturbing the order of
reinstatement.
8. Pursuant thereto, the Labour Court reconsidered Issue No.2
and by order dated 04.07.2016, held that the findings of the Inquiry
Officer were perverse and granted liberty to the Respondent-MSRTC to
lead evidence. Before the Labour Court, the Petitioner examined
himself and two witnesses, including the driver of the bus and a
passenger. The Respondent-MSRTC examined the Assistant Traffic
Superintendent. Upon considering the evidence led by both sides, the
learned Labour Court decided the complaint against the Petitioner,
dismissed the same and confirmed the order of dismissal dated
27.10.2009.
4 of 6 88-WP.872.2022.odt
9. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed Revision
Application (ULP) No.13 of 2018. The learned Industrial Court
confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the present
petition.
10. Mr. Sandesh Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that after remand by this Court, the Labour Court had already
held that the inquiry was fair and proper and permitted the
Respondent to lead evidence. According to him, once such findings had
attained finality and the Respondent failed to establish the guilt of the
Petitioner by leading evidence, the Labour Court ought to have allowed
the complaint. He further submits that the Labour Court relied upon
previous misconducts to dismiss the complaint. Therefore, he submits
that the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are
liable to be set aside.
11. Per contra, Ms. Anagha Rotte, learned Advocate for the
Respondent-MSRTC supports the impugned orders. She submits that
the incident in question was not an isolated one and that on earlier 16
occasions, inquiries were initiated against the Petitioner for similar
charges. She submits that one of the charges in the present proceedings
related to issuance of used tickets to passengers, which was detected
during the checking of the bus. Statements were recorded, a
departmental inquiry was conducted and upon recording evidence of
5 of 6 88-WP.872.2022.odt
the concerned officers, the Inquiry Officer recommended dismissal. She
submits that the findings recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed
by the Industrial Court are based on evidence on record and call for no
interference. In support, reliance is placed on the judgment of Jalna
District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Manik Ambadas Toge ,
reported in 2023 LLR 282.
12. After hearing the learned Advocates for both sides, it appears
that the Petitioner was a habitual offender and similar allegations were
repeatedly levelled against him. As regards the contention that the
passengers were not examined and that adequate opportunity was not
granted to the Petitioner, it is to be noted that during checking, the
flying squad found that the Petitioner was in possession of used tickets
and was not carrying the way bill. The learned Labour Court has
recorded findings in paragraph 13, which read as under:-
"13. From the aforesaid discussion it is crystal clear that, the
version of respondent's witness is corroborated with the
documentary evidence as stated above. The complainant has
admitted the documents Exh.C-7 to Exh.C-29 and Exh.C-48 filed
by respondent on record of this case, which suggests, supports,
and proves it's contentions. Not only that, the complainant by
filing similar documents Exh.U-19 to Exh.U-27 admitted the
contentions of the respondent. The documents produced by
respondent shows that, the complainant has given the fare tickets
to two passengers which were already sold by him on his previous
trip and misappropriated the amount of the respondent and not
carried way bill and CWA with him with dishonest intention.
During cross-examination of CW1 the complainant has expressly
admitted that, he recovered an amount of fare tickets of Rs.16/-
from two passengers travelling in the bus and resold the tickets
which were already sold by him to the said two passengers on
previous trip and he has misappropriated the amount of
6 of 6 88-WP.872.2022.odt
respondent as stated by CW1 in his examination-in-chief. On the
contrary, the complainant has not filed any concrete documentary
evidence on record in support of his contentions. Whatever
documents filed by the complainant are suggests, supports and
proves the contentions of the respondent. The evidence lead by the
complainant and his witnesses is also beyond his pleading to some
extent as stated above and therefore, cannot be relied or acted
upon, as stated above. Therefore, the bare version of the
complainant and his witnesses cannot be relied or acted upon.
Admittedly, the respondent has not produced the spot statements
of one passenger and complainant recorded by CW1, on record of
this case but however, as the complainant has admitted the various
facts during the cross-examination of CW1 as well as documents of
the respondent and therefore, it has no consequence at all. The
cummulative effect of all the facts discuss above demonstrates
that, the respondent has establish the fact that, the charges of
misconduct levelled against the complainant are proved by it
before this Court. The complainant has failed to establish his
innocence in respect of the charges levelled by respondent against
him. Thus, I hold that, the respondent has proved the charges of
misconduct levelled against the complainant by it, before this
Court. Hence, I answer this issue No.3 in affirmative."
13. Thus, upon consideration of the evidence on record, the
learned Labour Court dismissed the complaint. Considering that the
Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent-MSRTC and that
possession of used tickets was proved through the evidence of the
checking officer who inspected the bus, the learned Labour Court
rightly recorded a finding that the order of dismissal was legal and
proper. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by
the learned Labour Court and the learned Industrial Court.
14. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
