( 1 ) wp10271-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10271 OF 2010 Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Osmanabad and another PETITIONERS VERSUS Ajit Govindrao Sarde RESPONDENT .... Mr. B.B. Yenge, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.L. Shahane, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The respondent was working as S.T. driver. He was subjected to disciplinary enquiry on the ground that he had driven a S.T. bus in rash and negligent manner. The contention of the petitioner - M.S.R.T.C. was that due to the negligence of the respondent, the S.T. bus was damaged. It was alleged that the respondent drove the S.T. bus in rash and negligent manner and caused loss of Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner - ( 2 ) wp10271-10 M.S.R.T.C. The respondent denied all the material allegations. His defence in the disciplinary enquiry was that he had not committed any negligence while driving the S.T. bus. He asserted that on the relevant date, he was driving the S.T. bus with due care and caution but while negotiating on a curve, the Maruti car vehicle bearing registration No. MH-25-A-1723 came from opposite direction and gave dash to the S.T. bus from its left-hand side. He alleged that the accident occurred due to sheer negligence of the driver of the Maruti car vehicle. He denied that he had contributed in the course of the incident. 3. The petitioner found the respondent guilty on the charges of rash and negligent driving and causing loss of Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner due to such acts of the latter. The petitioner, therefore, directed that one (1) increment of the respondent for period of three (3) years shall be withheld with permanent effect on future increments. 4. The respondent challenged the order rendered by the disciplinary authority by filing complaint (ULP) No. 7/2009. That was allowed by the Industrial Court, Latur. ( 3 ) wp10271-10 5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned judgement and order of the Industrial Court is incorrect, improper and illegal. He would submit that the penalty awarded to the respondent should not have been interfered by the Industrial Court. He would further submit that it would create a bad precedent if such interference is permitted in as much as the respondent was found negligent while driving of the S.T. bus and the act on his part could be appropriately dealt with by the disciplinary authority. 6. In the present case, it is manifest from the circumstances that the respondent was negotiating the S.T. bus on a curve when the incident occurred. The petitioner did not examine any of the passengers of the S.T. bus during course of the enquiry. Needless to say, there was no eye witness account of the incident. The respondent came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under section 304A of the I.P. Code during the course of criminal proceedings. The version of the respondent that the accident occurred due to sheer negligence of the driver of the Maruti car vehicle is not otherwise shattered by any attending circumstances. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court duly considered the attending circumstances and the material on record while reaching the ( 4 ) wp10271-10 conclusion that the petitioner could not establish the charges levelled against the respondent and, therefore, the penalty imposed is bad in law. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on certain observations in "Shriram s/o Narayan Bhoyar vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation" 1994 I CLR 253. The case of Shriram Narayan Bhoyar stands on different footings. The bus driver by name Shriram Bhoyar had colluded with a tractor and the complaint application filed by him was dismissed by the Labour Court. The dismissal was confirmed in revision proceedings by the Industrial Court. Thus, there were concurrent findings of both the Courts to the effect that damage of Rs. 2000/- was caused to the S.T. bus due to the negligence of Shriram Bhoyar. The learned counsel further seeks to rely on certain observations in case of "U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Pukhraj Singh and others " 1999 II, L.L.J. 127. The driver in the given case was terminated for want of control over the steering and lack of self-confidence. In the present case, there is no tangible material to infer that the respondent had no control over the steering of the S.T. bus and that the accident was result of his sole negligence. Apart from this, it is pertinent to notice that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence as regards the financial liability which could have been incurred as a result of a claim put ( 5 ) wp10271-10 forth by the legal representatives of the deceased driver of the Maruti car vehicle. In other words, the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are also not placed on record, if any such proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. 7. Considering the peculiar fact situation obtained in the instant case, no interference is warranted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction as the impugned judgement does not suffer from any case of arbitrariness. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp10271-10