1 wp 10282.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION K WRIT PETITION NO.10282 OF 2010 Smt. Sunita Sambhaji Jadhav .. Petitioner. Vs. The Divisional Traffic Superintendent .. Respondent. Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo for the Petitioner. Mr. G.S.Hegde for Respondent. CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. RESERVED ON : 20TH JULY, 2011. PRONOUNCED ON: 12TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision of the Industrial Court, Pune dated 19th November, 2010 in Revision Application (ULP) No.17 of 2010 dismissing the Revision against the order dated 15th December, 2009 of the Third Labour Court, Pune below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.81 of 2009 dismissing the Complaint of the Petitioner. 2 wp 10282.10.doc 3. The facts giving rise to the Petition are that the Petitioner is in service of the Respondent as Conductor. The Petitioner was conductor with the bus which was on route from Sangli to Baramati on 27th June, 2008. It was checked at Katarkhatav. At that time 20 passengers were found in the bus. One of the passengers was sister of the Petitioner. She was travelling from Vita to Baramati for which ticket was Rs. 95/-. It was alleged that the Petitioner issued her ticket for Rs.4/- only from Mahuli to Mechani and ticket from Vita to Mahuli was not issued. While the checking was on, the Petitioner tried to issue ticket of Rs.7/- and Rs.10/- to her sister. They were seized by the Checking Officer. The cash with the Petitioner when checked was found less by Rs.120/-. The Checking Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the report to the Authority. The Petitioner was served with the charge-sheet and enquiry was conducted. The Petitioner was found guilty and was served with a notice dated 2nd May, 2009 to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal. 4. The Petitioner challenges the show cause notice issued to her by filing the Complaint (ULP) No. 81 of 2009 before the Labour Court under section 28 (1) read with Item no.1(a), (b), (d) (f) and (g) of 3 wp 10282.10.doc Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Practices and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Third Labour Court, Pune rejected that application by order dated 15th December, 2009 and Revision Application (ULP) No. 17 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune by order dated 19th November, 2010. 5. Feeling aggrieved the Petitioner has preferred this Petition challenging the decisions of the Labour Court, Pune and decision of the Industrial Court, Pune. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there was no fair and proper enquiry and the Petitioner was not given opportunity to defend herself. Secondly, he contended that the charge levelled against the Petitioner was not proved and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge levelled against the Petitioner. According to him, both the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in dismissing her Complaint. 7. In support of his submission he relies on the judgments in the matter of Shantilal Motilal Marwadi vs. Lipton Tea (India) Ltd. & Ors. 4 wp 10282.10.doc reported in 1991 II CLR 225, Biecco Lawrie Limited and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 32, Chandra Prakash Singh and Others vs. Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 292 and P. Sreeramulu and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Asstt. Collector, Cuddapah reported in AIR 1970 AP 114. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent vehemently opposed the present Petition. He submits that the Respondent carried out enquiry against the Petitioner according to law and therefore, there is no question of entertaining the present Petition. He further submits that the Officer-in-charge of Checking Squad recorded the statement of Petitioner’s sister as well as other passengers. It is crystal clear from the enquiry report and statement made by the passengers that Petitioner misappropriated the Respondent’s funds. He further submits that the Apex Court in the matter of Karnataka State Transport Corporation held that once the conductor is found misappropriating the money, such person is not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction is bound to result into the financial loss to the Corporation. In support of his contention he relies on following Judgments: 5 wp 10282.10.doc Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti reported in AIR 2001 SC 930, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs. General Secretary, Best Workers’ Union and another reported in 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 1013, State Transport Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. Shankar Gopal Pagire & Ors. reported in 2004 III CLR 1034 and Dawn Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Anr. reported in 1989 (1) CLR 79. 9. I have gone through the judgment of Labour Court and Industrial Court and also the proceedings on record. Both the courts have considered the evidence on record and they found that the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. On going through the proceedings on record, the Checking Officer while checking bus found that one passenger who happened to be the sister of the Petitioner was not given ticket of Rs.95/- which was the fare for the travel from Vita to Baramati and she was given ticket for Rs.4/ only for the said journey and further the cash with the Petitioner was found less by Rs.120/-. Those facts have been found duly proved by both the courts below on considering and appreciating the evidence on record. Those findings of facts cannot be interfered with by this court in the Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 wp 10282.10.doc 10. The learned counsel contended that the Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry put certain questions to the witnesses which are of the nature of cross-examination. It is well settled that in the domestic enquiry the detailed procedure of recording the evidence as followed in courts need not be strictly followed. In this connection, the learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision of this court in the matter of State Transport Co-op. Bank Ltd. & another vs. Shanker Gopal Pagire and others (supra). It fully supports the submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondent. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of his case that enquiry was vitiated as certain questions to the witnesses were put by the Enquiry Officer relied on the decision in the matter of Shantilal Motilal Marwadi (supra). 12.I have gone through that decision. That decision is distinguishable on facts. It is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, I find that the Departmental Enquiry in this case is not vitiated on the ground that some questions were put by the Enquiry Officer to the witnesses. It is also not vitiated on the ground that the 7 wp 10282.10.doc Petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses or was not allowed to lead defence evidence. 13.As regards the satisfactory proof of the charge levelled against the Petitioner, both the courts on considering and appreciating the evidence on record found that the charge levelled against the Petitioner was duly proved. This court cannot interfere in the findings of facts arrived at by the courts below by re-appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the charge levelled against the Petitioner was not proved, cannot be accepted. 14.As regards the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the penalty of the dismissal from the service was disproportionate to the charge established cannot be accepted. This is not the first incident in which the Petitioner was found misappropriating funds while issuing the tickets to the passengers. In this connection, it is on record that Petitioner has also challenged the notice of dismissal in earlier Departmental proceedings in Complaint (ULP) No.68 of 2009 pending before the Labour Court. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be held that the 8 wp 10282.10.doc punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges established against her. 15.In the result, there is no substance in the writ petition and which is stands dismissed. 16.No order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.)