IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1426 of 2008 Madhukar Mangesh Pai ..Petitioner vs. 1. The BEST Undertaking & Ors. ..Respondents Ms.Ritu Joshi i/b Mr.M.M.Thorat for petitioner. Mr.P.M.Palshikar with Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b M/s M.V.Kini and Co. for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 23rd June 2008 23rd June 2008 23rd June 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is one more case of a Bus-conductor in public transport service not accounting for the Tickets and movies received. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was employed with the respondent as a bus conductor. He was on duty on 15th June, 2000. The bus was checked by the inspector and checking disclosed that there was a shortage of Rs.5295/- in the cash with the petitioner. Hence, the charge sheet was issued under the relevant Standing Order. Enquiry was conducted. Upon assessment and appreciation of the material, Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report and the past conduct of the petitioner and imposed the penalty/punishment of dismissal. 2. That was subject matter of challenge in proceedings before the Courts below. There are concurrent findings with regard to guilt of the petitioner, fairness of the enquiry and proportionality of the punishment. Ms.Joshi would urge that the findings are vitiated by errors apparent in as much as the entire action is based upon conjectures and surmises. Enquiry itself was not fair and finding in that behalf is rendered without adverting to the necessary material. 3. It is not possible to accept any of these contentions because the petitioner has not disputed that he was on duty, that the bus was checked by the Inspector and the tickets which were unsold and the cash was also inspected, which revealed shortage of Rs.5295.10. This was the quantum which was found short after sale of tickets. The petitioner could not satisfactorily explain the shortage. In the enquiry full opportunity was given to the petitioner. Even the witnesses were examined. The shortage is not disputed by the petitioner but his case was that he kept the blocks of tickets of Rs.8, Rs.9 and Rs.11/- in his locker and, therefore, there was shortage. 4. In my view, repeatedly it has been held that the conductor in public transport service holds a position of trust. He has to account for the tickets that are sold and the amount received, honestly and diligently. When such acts are rapidly increasing and the Courts have been warned not to interfere with the punishments in such cases or else it is difficult to maintain discipline, in my view, the concurrent findings of fact do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Petition is summarily dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)