WP/3970/1998 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3970 OF 1998 Pune Municipal Transport, Pune ... Petitioner V/s. V.F. Rathod ... Respondent Mr.R.M. Pethe for Petitioner Mr.A.S. Rao for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The order impugned in this Petition has been passed by the Industrial Court, Pune on 19.8.1997 in Complaint (ULP) No.31 of 1992. The complaint was filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act in which the respondent contended that the punishment imposed of stopping 10 increments permanently was illegal and an unfair labour practice. 2. The brief facts which give rise to the present case are as follows: The respondent was employed as a Conductor with the Petitioner from 24.1.1977. He was fitted into the payscale of Rs.900-2175/-. A chargesheet was issued to the respondent in which it was alleged that he attempted to misappropriate an amount of Rs.55.25 by not issuing tickets to the passengers. He was therefore charged with having committed a misconduct under Standing Order 25(w). The respondent replied WP/3970/1998 : 2 : to this chargesheet denying that he had committed an act of misconduct. A domestic enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The enquiry officer submitted a report on 8.5.1991 exonerating the respondent. A notice was issued to the respondent on 21.5.1991 directing him to show cause as to why the punishment of withholding of 10 increments should not be imposed. This was because the transport committee had not accepted the findings of the enquiry officer, exonerating the respondent. The respondent replied to that show cause notice. That explanation was not accepted by the Petitioner. On 16.12.1991, the Transport Manager passed an order reducing the respondent in the payscale by 10 steps i.e. 10 increments which he had earned in the payscale of Rs.900-2175 were stopped with permanent effect. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent preferred a complaint under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act r/w Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act contending that the punishment imposed was contrary to the Standing Orders applicable. The petitioner in its written statement contended that the respondent had been found guilty of misappropriation and, therefore, it was necessary to impose a punishment on him. According to the petitioner, its enquiry officer was biased and despite the evidence on record establishing the guilt of the respondent, he had found him fit to exonerate him. It was in these circumstances that the Transport Committee took a lenient view and stopped 10 increments permanently. 4. Evidence was led by the respondent as well as the petitioner in support of their respective contentions. The Industrial Court after considering both the documentary and oral evidence on record concluded that the petitioner had violated the principles of natural justice and had committed an unfair labour practice under WP/3970/1998 : 3 : Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 5. Mr.Pethe, the learned advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the Industrial Court had committed a grave error by allowing the complaint. According to him, the respondent had committed a serious act of misconduct of misappropriation of certain amounts. He points out that the respondent had in fact admitted the misconduct and, therefore, the enquiry officer had committed an error in exonerating the respondent at the enquiry. Mr.Pethe submits that the Transport Committee after considering the circumstances against the respondent in which the petitioner had found that the enquiry officer had incorrectly absolved the respondent from the charges levelled against him. The learned advocate submits that the discipline and appeal rules which are applicable to the petitioner empower the disciplinary authority to reduce the delinquent employee to a lower post or in a lower timescale. According to him, the punishment which has been imposed is under 26(c) of the Rules and, therefore, no act of unfair labour practice has been committed by the Petitioner. 6. The learned advocate for the respondent submits that the witnesses who were examined before the enquiry officer had not proved that the respondent had committed any act of misconduct. It was in these circumstances that the enquiry officer exonerated the respondent. He also points out that the passenger who was examined in fact had stated that no such incident occurred where the respondent had committed any act of misappropriation. He further submits that the Industrial Court has committed no error any allowing the complaint and, therefore urges that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. WP/3970/1998 : 4 : 7. The incident alleged against the workman has occurred in the following manner according to the petitioner: While on duty as a Conductor from Uruli Kanchan to Swargate on 5.2.1991, a group of 28 passengers boarded the bus. They wanted to purchase tickets. However, the respondent issued tickets to only 15 passengers and did not furnish the change of Rs.17/-. This group of passengers alighted the bus and the ticket checker sought to check their tickets. The complainant i.e. one of the passengers informed the ticket checker that the respondent had taken 13 tickets back from the passengers. The ticket checker then gave Rs.17/- to the passengers as that was the change which they were entitled to based on the statements made by the passengers. A chargesheet was issued to the workman. The explanation of the respondent to this chargesheet was that he had asked the passengers for the tickets as he wanted to check the serial numbers of the tickets issued. The enquiry officer has found that the evidence on record led by the petitioner was insufficient to establish the charge against the respondent. He had found that admittedly all the tickets had been punched. The explanation of the workman that he wished to check the serial numbers of the tickets was found to be plausible and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the delinquent workman. 8. It is now well settled that if the disciplinary authority desires to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, it can do so for good reasons which must be recorded. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has recorded no reasons for differing with the report of the enquiry officer. The order of 16.12.1991, imposing the punishment, does not mention a single reason as to why the report of the enquiry officer was not accepted and the reason for imposing the punishment. WP/3970/1998 : 5 : 9. In my view, therefore, the order impugned in the complaint has been passed illegally. The respondent has been greatly prejudiced by the fact that no reasons were furnished to him by the disciplinary authority for differing with the enquiry officer’s report. In these circumstances, the Industrial Court has rightly held that the order imposing punishment on the respondent workman was illegal. The Industrial Court has not committed any error by allowing the complaint. The petitioner had not bothered to either furnish or record the reasons for not accepting the report of the enquiry officer exonerating the respondent workman. The principles of natural justice have been flouted by the petitioner while imposing the punishment. 10. In any event, the punishment imposed under 26(1)(d) of withholding 10 increments was illegal. The penalty which could be imposed on an employee guilty of the misconduct under 26(1)(d) is of “withholding of increments or promotion”. In my opinion, the penalty of withholding of 10 increments therefore cannot be imposed. Mr.Pethe’s submission that the penalty which is imposed is under 26(1)(d) is unsustainable in view of the fact that the order dated 16.12.1991 imposing the punishment indicates that the punishment has been imposed under 26(1)(d). 11. Moreover, in my opinion, the power vested in the petitioner to withhold the increment does not extend to withholding of 10 increments. 12. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged. No costs.