1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7620 OF 2008 Kailash Prabhakarrao Parage .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai and others .. .. Respondents Shri Y. R. Barhate, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. R. D. Reddy for the Respondent No. 1 to 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ Per Naresh H. Patil, J] : 1. The learned counsel for the respondents Mrs. Reddy has placed on record judgment of learned Single Coram Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J, reported in 2008 (5) Mh. L. J. 208, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ambadas. It is necessary to reproduce para 5 and 6. 2 "5. The order of the Industrial Court has been called into question, both by the workman and by the employer. It would be appropriate to take the challenge preferred by the workman to the order of the Industrial Court. On behalf of the workman, reliance has been placed on a scheme purported to have been floated by the then Vice President and Managing Director of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. A copy of the scheme is placed on the record. A circular was issued which states that in the event that any employee is found to have misappropriated the funds of the Corporation on account of the sale of tickets and it was the first act of misconduct at the time, the employee who has admitted his guilt would be liable to be taken back in service subject to his reimbursing 50% of the amount misappropriated or Rs. 5,000/-. For the second offence, the amount to be reimbursed would be 75% of the amount misappropriated or at least Rs. 10,000/-. Counsel appearing on behalf of the employer submitted that subsequently the circular had been withdrawn. However, it has been urged on behalf of the workman that at the material time the circular was in operation and the workman should be given the benefit thereof. 6. It is impossible for the Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to do anything of the kind. The circular purports to condone acts of misappropriation. It is inconceivable that any public body can condone a misappropriation of its funds particularly in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court taking a strict view of acts of misconduct on the part of the bus conductors and those vested with fiduciary duties in State Transport Undertaking. But, be that as it may, 3 the circular cannot be read as conferring a vested right on any employee who has been found to be involved in a misappropriation of funds to reinstatement in service despite a penalty imposed in a disciplinary enquiry." 02. It is inconceivable that Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation could conceive such an idea of condoning serious lapses and misconduct of employees relating to misappropriation for re-inducting them into service. Writ Court could not entertain such pleas, even if Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation had issued any such circular. The learned counsel for the respondents Mrs. Reddy states that such circular is not in operation now. In exercise of writ jurisdiction no case is made out by the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner had filed complaint in the Labour Court and same is dismissed in default. Petition dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/July 09