1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6699 OF 1998 Shri R.L.Pagare, At post : Chachadgaon, Tal. Dindori, Dist.Nashik )..Petitioner Vs Divisional Controller, State Transport Corporation, Nasik Division,Nasik )..Respondents ---- Ms.Seema Sarnaik for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Hegde for the respondent. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 17th November, 2009. Judgment :- 1 This is a petition filed by an employee of the respondent. At the relevant time the petitioner was working as a Conductor with the respondent-corporation. While he was so working on 3.2.1991 a check was conducted in his bus and several irregularities were found. It was found that he has taken Rs.20 from two passengers but tickets were not issued by him, one male-female couple had paid Rs.29 but had been issued ticket of Rs.19 and one red colour ticket of Rs.10/- has not been issued to them. One person who was travelling from Surat to Navasari has not been issued a ticket though he had asked for it. One lady was travelling from Surat to Navasari without ticket and had not paid for her travel. One passenger had given Rs.10/- as luggage charges but had not been issued a ticket and the ticket manifest was not maintained properly. 2 After due inquiry, the petitioner came to be terminated from service. He subsequently filed a complaint being ULP No.99/92 in the labour court at Nasik alleging unfair labour practices under item nos.1 (a) (b) (d) (f) & (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & 2 PULP Act 1971. The labour court by its judgment and order allowed the said complaint and declared that the respondent-corporation had engaged in unfair labour practice covered by item 1(g) of Schedule-IV of MRTU & PULP Act and the respondent was therefore, directed to reabsorb the petitioner in service as a fresh conductor. The respondent-corporation filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, Nasik and the same came to be allowed by order dated 28.8.1998. The impugned order passed by the labour Court dated 26.3.1997 came to be quashed and the order of termination therefore, stood confirmed. 3 It has been brought on record before the revisional court that there were 11 earlier punishments awarded to the petitioner. It was sought to be contended that the petitioner had not disputed the wrongful acts. He had also admitted that the statements of the passengers were recorded in his favour. He however, contended that lacunas on his part remained because there was a quarrel in the bus and therefore, he could not properly issue tickets on time. This is a factual aspect of the matter on which there are two concurrent findings of the lower courts against the petitioner. The discipline rules of the respondent treat such mis-conduct of the petitioner as major mis-conduct punishable only by discharge or dismissal. In the circumstances, the lower punishment could not have been given in law. Apart from this the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Corporation Vs. B.S.Hulliikatti reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 930 took a very serious view of such conduct on the part of a bus conductor and confirmed the order of termination. It is not possible to hold that there is any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, petition is rejected and rule stands discharged. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4