1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2875 OF 2002 The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Dhule Division, Dhule Dist. Dhule. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Shrawan Daga Patil r/o Botane Tq/. & Dist. Dhule .. RESPONDENT Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 4 th December, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Petitioner / employer is assailing the concurrent orders passed by the courts below by way of presenting the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 Respondent / employee presented complaint ULP no. 203/1992 claiming relief in respect of reinstatement with continuity in service and full 2 back wages. Respondent /employee was serving as a conductor since 1980 with the petitioner / corporation. On 27-8-1991, charge sheet was presented against the employee in respect of allegations made against him and after conducting enquiry, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed against him. According to the employee, departmental enquiry conducted against him is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, it is also contention of the employee that he was not afforded appropriate opportunity to defend his case. Petitioner / employer by presenting written statement controverted the contentions raised by the employee. It is the contention of the employer that the employee has committed misconduct during his continuance in service. On 17-8-1991 the employee was on scheduled duty on the bus running between Navapur to Holnantha. The bus was checked at Sindkheda by the officials of the department and it was found that the cash with the conductor / employee was short by Rs. 53.35/- while his private cash was in excess by Rs.55.50/-. It was also contended by the employer that the checking officials found that the employee has re- used tickets which were already issued by him to the passengers. Thus, according to the employer, respondent/employee has committed misconduct in respect of which charge sheet was issued to him on 27-8-1991 and after holding due enquiry, it was found that he was guilty of the charges 3 levelled against him. The employer imposed punishment in respect of dismissal from service which was subject matter of challenge in the complaint presented by the employee before the labour court. 3 The learned Judge of the labour court after considering the contentions raised by both the parties found that the punishment imposed against the employee was shockingly disproportionate with the charges levelled against him. It was also found by the labour court that the service of the employee was unblemished and as such the learned Judge of the labour court while setting aside the order in respect of termination of services of the employee directed his reinstatement with the benefit of continuity, however, without back wages. Judgment and order passed by the labour court on 14-10-1993 was subject matter of challenge in Revision Application No. 165/1999 presented by the employer. The revision application came to be heard and disposed of by the learned Member of the industrial court, Jalgaon on 31-10-2001 who after extending opportunity of hearing to both the parties concerned was pleased to dismiss the same. 4 I have perused the orders passed by both the courts below and heard arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective 4 parties. It is to be noted at this stage that the employee has joined the establishment as conductor in the year 1980. After decision rendered by the labour court in the year 1993, the respondent /employee is reinstated and since then he is continued in service. Orders passed by the courts below were not stayed by this court while admitting the petition. Thus, the fact remains that since his reinstatement in service in the year 1993, the respondent is continued in service by the employer since about last 16 years. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that the respondent / employee has nearly attained the age of super annuation. Considering all these relevant aspects, I am of the view that the order passed by the courts below need not be interfered with. The learned Judge of the labour court found that the employee was charged with financial irregularity amounting to Rs.53,35 ps. It was also found by the learned Judge of the labour court that the service record of the employee since his induction in service was blotless. The revisional court also found that after his reinstatement in pursuance to the order passed by the labour court since about last 7 to 8 years, there are no allegations made against the employee. It is also not controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the service record of the employee since his reinstatement in service in pursuance to the order passed by the labour court i.e. from last 17 5 years, is unblemished. The courts below found that the punishment imposed against the employee is shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and as such, he was directed to be reinstated in the year 1993. Finding of fact recorded by the courts below need not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and specially in the circumstances when the employee has rendered services of about 17 years since his reinstatement. Writ petition therefore fails. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp2875.02.odt