High Court · 2025
Facts
1 of 7 933-WP.9746.2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD933 WRIT PETITION NO. 9746 OF 2024SHIVDARSHAN PRABAHAKAR RAUTVERSUSTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION...Mr. Vivekanand U. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. Anilkumar B. Dhongade, Advocate for Respondent. ...CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE :6th MAY, 2025P.C.:-1.This petition takes exception to the orders passed by LabourCourt, Latur in Complaint U.L.P. No.17 of 2010 dismissing thecomplaint and confirmation thereof by Industrial Court in RevisionU.L.P. No.4 of 2020. 2.Facts which are relevant for decision of the case are narratedin brief as under:- (i)Petitioner joined service of MSRTC as a ‘Conductor’ in the year1994. It is his case that he was on his duty on the bus proceedingfrom Hyderabad to Shirdi. Admittedly, the flying squad of MSRTChad intercepted the bus at Osmanabad. It is found that one ladypassenger was not issued with ticket, nor the fare amount wascollected from her. It was further revealed that Petitioner was 2 of 7 933-WP.9746.2024holding deficit amount as against the issuance of ticket. It wasalso alleged the Petitioner that the previously used tickets werefound in his custody for reissuance by defacing them. On theseallegations, the chargesheet came to be issued against thePetitioner on 28th February 2025. During the pendency of thedepartmental enquiry, Petitioner came to be suspended fromservice. enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner. MSRTC ledevidence to prove the misconducts of Petitioner. Since, EnquiryOfficers held Petitioner to be guilty for the alleged misconduct, thepunishment of dismissal was proposed against him. After hearingthe Petitioner on the point of punishment, an order came to bepassed on 24th July 2006 dismissing the Petitioner from theservices of MSRTC.(ii)Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, Complaint U.L.P.No.17 of 2010 came to be filed before Labour Court, Latur.Labour Court framed preliminary issue in respect of fairness of theenquiry and it is held that the enquiry is fair and proper. LabourCourt after considering the past record/conduct of the Petitionerdismissed complaint. Revision U.L.P. filed before the IndustrialCourt was unsuccessful, hence this petition is filed.3.Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that thoughthere were three allegations made against the Petitioner in the 3 of 7 933-WP.9746.2024chargesheet. The basic allegation was of non-issuance of ticket to alady passenger. In this regard, learned Advocate brought to theattention of this Court, statement of the said lady passenger whichaccording to him indicates that Petitioner was not at fault for non-issuance of the ticket. Similarly, reference is made to the statement ofPetitioner himself recorded on 13th February 2005 in which, he statesabout issuance of ticket to the lady passenger subsequently. It isargued on behalf of the Petitioner that there was no allegation at thefirst instance against the Petitioner i.e. on 13th February 2005 abouthaving been possession of the used tickets for re-issuance. It is hisfurther submission that the short amount found with the Petitionercannot be construed as misappropriation. In any case, it is hissubmission that there was no sufficient evidence placed on record byMSRTC in order to hold that the alleged misconduct against thePetitioner. To support this submission, reliance is placed on thejudgment of this Court in Mahadeo Atmaramji Nage Vs. MaharashtraState Road Transport Corporation1. 4.Learned Advocate for the Respondent-MSRTC supported theimpugned order. According to him, after issuance of chargesheet dueenquiry was conducted against the Petitioner and evidence laid beforethe Enquiry Officer is sufficient to prove that the misconduct/charges12009 (2) Bom. C.R. 824 4 of 7 933-WP.9746.2024levelled against the Petitioner. It is his submission that once provenand more particularly when the Petitioner does not dispute the factthat the used tickets being found in his possession. For any satisfactoryexplanation, according to him, the possession must be held to be forreissue of such tickets. 5.It is his submission that this is not for the first instance anyaction has been taken against the Petitioner. In this regard, reference ismade to the observations made by the Labour Court in the orderimpugned wherein it is stated that the Petitioner has been punished 67times. In response to this submission, learned Advocate for thePetitioner submits that out of 67 punishment, there are hardly 2 to 3punishments which are related to non-issuance of ticket and otherpunishments are for miscellaneous issues like; late reporting,absentism, etc. Learned Advocate for Respondent-MSRTC pointed outthat upon previously eight occasions, the action has been taken againstthe Petitioner for non-issuance of the tickets. 6.Insofar as the order of dismissal issued against the Petitioneris concerned, the same is preceded by issuance of show cause noticeand chargesheet and conducting of departmental enquiry. It is not thecase of the Petitioner that he was not given an opportunity of hearingand/or in his absence, the enquiry proceedings were conducted.
Legal Reasoning
5 of 7 933-WP.9746.2024Perusal of the record indicates that during an enquiry, the Petitionerwas represented by representative of his choice and the witnessesexamined by the management/MSRTC were duly cross-examined.Thus, it cannot be said that the enquiry proceedings conducted againstthe Petitioner is non-compliance of principles of natural justice oragainst rules. Apart from this, there is no dispute about the fact thatPetitioner was issued a show cause notice before the punishment ofdismissal from service. Thus, the findings recorded by Labour Courtwith regard to the fairness of the enquiry are in consonance with thematerial evidence on record, as due procedure has been follow beforeissuing order of dismissal of petition. 7.The Labour Court has taken into consideration the evidencealleged against the Petitioner in the departmental enquiry. There waslimited scope for the Court to get into the evidence and unless findingsof enquiry are perverse on the face of it or leading to miscarriage ofjustice, labour court would not have been permitted to record differentfindings than the one drawn by Enquiry Officer. It is pertinent to notethat though it is sought to be argued now on behalf of the Petitionerthat on 13th February 2005, there was no other allegation except for theallegation of non-issuance of ticket to a lady passenger. In hisstatement before the Enquiry Officer, Petitioner never disputes theseizure of used tickets from his custody. This Court finds substance in 6 of 7 933-WP.9746.2024contention of the counsel for MSRTC that unless explainedsatisfactorily, possession of such used tickets by a conductor, it can beliterally inferred that the same were possessed for re-issuance. 8.There is evidence on record to indicate that the ticket wasnot issued to the lady passenger. The explanation is sought to be givenby the Petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that the Petitioner isworking with MSRTC since 1994 and was not a new recruit in order tocommit such mistakes. Finally, when the Labour Court has acceptedthe evidence laid before the enquiry officer to be sufficient to holdPetitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct charged against him andthis finding is not perverse, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, it is notopen for this Court to reassess the evidence led before the EnquiryOfficer and to record any contrary finding than the one drawn byEnquiry Officer is accepted by labour court. 9.Now question arises as to whether the statement of dismissalimposed against the Petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. This isnot the first instance on which there is allegation made against thePetitioner of non-issuance of the tickets, previously on eight occasions,similar allegations are made against him. In the facts of the case, thepunishment of dismissal imposed against the Petitioner does not shockthe conscience of this Court. There could be no other justified 7 of 7 933-WP.9746.2024punishment for proven charge of misappropriation. 10.As a result of above discussion, there is no merit in thepetition. Petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)Tauseef