1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 357/2010. Vijay Madhukarrao Gaikwad -: versus :- M.S.R.T.C. And another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. Heard Shri C.V. Jagdale, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri V.G.Wankhede, learned counsel for respondents. Petitioner has been served with second show cause notice after completion of the departmental enquiry and he challenged the same by filing ULPA Complaint before the Labour Court. He sought stay of that show cause notice. Labour Court rejected the same and his revision against rejection has been dismissed by the Industrial Court. Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for petitioner argues that in departmental enquiry there is no evidence to implicate the present petitioner. He points out that the passengers have deposed in favour of the petitioner and even driver whose statement is alleged to have been obtained on spot, has deposed that his statement was not obtained on spot but at another place [Pandharkawada] and under pressure. He states that in view of this material on record, 2 the show cause notice itself is unwarranted. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand supports the impugned notice. He contends that all these aspects can be gone into by the Competent Authority after receipt of reply to the show cause notice. He invites attention to the past service of the petitioner on record. The past service on record of petitioner shows that at least 7 similar misconducts out of total 21 misconducts as noted therein. The case of petitioner that on 10.05.2008 a false case has been fabricated against hm, needs to be appreciated in this back ground. His statement was recorded on that date on spot and in that statement he has accepted that thee were 6 passengers without tickets in his Bus. However, his grievance that statement of those passengers were not recorded in his presence. The checking crew pointed out that he refused to sign the statement of passengers and even misbehaved with them, therefore, the statement of driver was also obtained. Shri Wankhede, contends that the passengers and driver have turned hostile in cross examination. The facts show that the petitioner was in service since long and in this situation and if on 10.05.2008 any false case was fabricated against him, he ought to have made grievance immediately in that respect. No such grievance is made till receipt of charge sheet. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matte in writ jurisdiction, as concurrent findings reached by the Authorities below cannot be labeled as erroneous or perverse. 3 Shri Jagdale, learned counsel at this stage states that time of 8 days should be given to the petitioner to file reply to the second show cause notice. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel has no objection if such reply is being filed within 8 days. In the circumstances, time till 26.02.2010 is given to petitioner to file reply to second show cause notice. With these observations and time to petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.