1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1193 OF 2010 Madhukar Nathu Ahire ..Petitioner V/s Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai and another. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Lalitkumar Mahajan holding for Mr.Vakil Afzal Husain Mohd., Advocate for petitioner. Mr.D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent no.2. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 9th June, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner was working as S.T. conductor. On 8th September, 2006, he was on duty as conductor on Surat-Nawapur State Transport bus No.6353, Vigilance Officer conducted surprise check at about 20.30 hours when S.T. Bus was in proximity of village Bardoli. The Vigilance Officer noticed that an amount of Rs. 39/- was less than expected cash collected by the petitioner. It was also found that he had reissued used S.T. fare ticket of Rs.29/- to a woman passenger. It was noticed that he had misappropriated the amount collected from the passengers. Hence, domestic 2 enquiry was held against him and thereafter, he was terminated from service. The petitioner approached the Labour Court with Complaint (ULP) No.44/2007 alleging that the respondents indulged in unfair labour practices as contemplated under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1941 (for short, "MRTU & PULP Act"). 3. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint. The petitioner preferred Revision (ULP) No.0/2009, which also came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court, Dhule. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no reliable evidence regarding misappropriation of any amount by the petitioner. He would submit that when the amount was short than expected, it could not be regarded as case of misappropriation. He, therefore, submits that the foundation of the administrative action is shaky, and therefore, it is necessary to interfere with both the Judgments. I find it difficult to countenance the submission of the Counsel. It is well settled that the evidence can not be re-appreciated by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is only required to be seen whether principles of natural justice have been followed and whether, there is absence 3 of material to reach the findings about the mis-conduct. There is no serious lacune in domestic enquiry. It appears that domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with procedure contemplated for holding such enquiries in respect of the employees of M.S.R.T.C. There appears no unfairness in the enquiry. The material on record indicated that the petitioner had issued used S.T. fare ticket. Infact, he had admitted this fact during his cross examination before the Enquiry Officer. Only fact that certain amount was less than expected collection will not enure to his benefit. It is probable that he had spent certain amount during the transit or that such extra amount was concealed by him or that receipt of such amount was deferred. In any case, the fact that he had issued used ticket and that more amount was collected by him would sufficiently demonstrate the alleged misconduct. This Court can not examine the evidence recorded during domestic enquiry with all the details. Therefore, the concurrent Judgments of Courts below are unassailable. 5. In the result, the Petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp1193.10