1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4718 of 2002 Nagpur Irrigation Circle & Others. Vrs. Baban Jivan Bondre. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M. Pathan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. B.M.Khan, learned counsel for the respondent . CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 27 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on 28.03.2003 allowing a complaint filed by the respondent and quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.03.1992 enhancing the punishment pertaining to the reversion of the complainant from the post of driver to the post of cleaner. The respondent was appointed as a cleaner on daily wages on 26.8.1973 It is the case of the respondent that he was promoted on the post of driver on 22.5.1982. While the respondent was working as a driver, the car which was driven by the respondent was involved in an accident and though the car hit a bullock-cart, there were no personal injuries to anybody. There was minor damage to the vehicle of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.5,000/-. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent was driving the vehicle negligently under the influence of liquor. The charge levelled against the respondent was proved and the inquiry officer proposed that the 2 respondent should not be considered for CRTE for a period of five years and an amount of Rs. 200/- per month should be deducted from his salary towards the recovery of damage caused to the vehicle, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Though the aforesaid punishment was proposed by the inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 12.3.1992 reverted the respondent from the post of driver to the post of cleaner and directed that an amount of Rs. 200/- should be recovered from his salary every month from 1992. The petitioner preferred a complaint against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The complaint was allowed by an order dated 28th of March, 2003. It appears that the Industrial Court was justified in allowing the complaint and setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority reverting the respondent from the post of driver to the post of cleaner. The Industrial Court held that the punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority was not legal as the inquiry report clearly showed that only a punishment of recovery of an amount of Rs.5,000/- and that the respondent should not be considered for placement in CRTE for five years, was proposed. However, without issuing any show cause notice to the respondent and without seeking the say of the respondent on enhancement of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority erroneously enhanced the punishment and reverted the respondent from the post of driver to the post of cleaner. It was held by the Industrial Court that since the punishment was enhanced by the Disciplinary Authority without affording an opportunity to the respondent, the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act. The order passed by the Industrial Court on 28th of March, 2003 is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. On a query made by this court on the previous occasion about the 3 conduct of the respondent-driver after the alleged accident, it is informed to this court that the respondent has not committed any misconduct during the relevant period. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan