1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5383 OF 2009 (Waman M. Suraskar vs. M.S.R.T.C. & Anr.) 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. JANUARY 06, 2010. Heard Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondents. Complaint ULP No. 36 of 2008 was filed by the present petitioner assailing the show cause notice dated 06.12.2008 proposing punishment of dismissal after departmental enquiry. The Labour Court has by order dated 19.03.2009 refused to grant interim stay. That order was challenged by the petitioner in Revision (ULP) No. 9 of 2009 before the Industrial Court at Yavatmal and the Industrial Court dismissed that revision vide judgment dated 13.11.2009. Shri Jagdale, learned counsel contends that two passengers proceeding from Pusad to Chondhi did not have any money with them and hence checking squad could not collect fine amount. He further points out endorsement was made by the petitioner at the time of checking which mentions that these two passengers were under the influence of alcohol and hence he could 2 not collect fair amount from them. He, therefore, argues that in view of this material on record, inference that these passengers had paid fair amount to the petitioner and still the petitioner did not issue ticket to them could not have been reached. He argues that reliance on statement of these persons is misconceived. He further points out that from other two persons fair amount was recovered by checking squad and fine amount was also recovered from them. In this situation, it is his contention that there is no reason to deny interim protection to the petitioner from proposed punishment. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that apart from these four without ticket passengers, the MSRTC cash with the petitioner was found excess by Rs.81. He invites attention to past service record of the petitioner and argues that as the petitioner was only called upon to reply second show cause notice, no interference is warranted at this stage. With the assistance of both learned counsel, I have perused the record. I find that in the past service record of the petitioner, there are misconducts of same nature earlier also. Here, the presence of four persons without ticket is not disputed and the petitioner is trying to explain their presence. There is no explanation how and why MSRTC cash was found in excess of Rs.81/-. The only contention is cash was not checked in the presence of the petitioner. However, in reply to charge sheet, no grievance of this nature has been made and 3 when person who checked the cash entered witness box, no suggestion on these lines was put to him. The only suggestion put to him was he only obtained the signature of the petitioner on the said checking form. Shri Jagdale, learned counsel has tried to urge that as per requirement of the departmental circular, the cash needs to be verified in the presence of the concerned persons. However, it is apparent that even violation of said circular is not put to said witness. The Competent Authority can consider all these grievances as and when they are raised before it by the petitioner and hence it will not be proper for this Court to reach to any conclusion finally at this stage. At this stage, Shri Jagdale states that the petitioner will file his reply to second show cause notice by 14th January 2010. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel states that he has no instructions in this respect. If reply is filed by the petitioner by 14th January 2010, the same shall be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority in accordance with law before proceeding further. With this direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.