1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5327 OF 2008 Trimbak Rambhaji Jagtap ...... Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. ...... Respondents Ms.Jane Cox, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr.G.S.Hegde, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 & 2. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : JULY 25, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Mr. Hegde, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2 waives service. With consent, taken up for final hearing today. 3. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, dated 27-06-2008 in Revision Application (ULP) No.110 of 2006, by which the revisional court has dismissed the revision of the petitioner herein, by confirming the order passed by the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No.183 of 1995. 4. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent. At the relevant 2 time, he was serving as a conductor. He was subjected to departmental inquiry on the ground that while he was discharging his duties as a conductor in a bus, he had not issued tickets to certain passengers. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him in the inquiry proceeedings. The Inquiry Officer found that the misconduct against the petitioner is established. On the basis of the same, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner asking him as to why he should not be removed from the service. However, instead of giving reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner rushed to the Labour Court by way of complaint i.e. Registered No.183 of 1995. It is unfortunate that the said complaint remained pending for 13 years and during pendency of the said complaint, the labour Court granted stay with the result that no final order was passed by the management. The said complaint was ultimately dismissed on 04-09-2006 by the Labour Court, Thane, which order was upheld by the revisional Court in Revision Application No.110 of 2006, which order is impugned in the writ petition. 5. I have heard Ms.Jane Cox for the Petitioner and Mr.Hegde for the Respondents. It is not in dispute that the matter is still pending with the disciplinary authority at show cause notice stage. Considering the said aspect, this matter is not required to be entertained by this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, as till today no final order is 3 passed by the respondent-corporation against the petitioner in any manner. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that subsequently the petitioner has already been promoted by the respondent-corporation on the post of Traffic Inspector and the petitioner is discharging his duties on the promotional post satisfactorily and there is no complaint against the petitioner in any manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is going to retire by way of superannuation within a period of four years. It is submitted by her that the respondent-corporation therefore, should take liberal view in the matter and may award a lesser penalty. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that whatever reply the petitioner may give to the show cause notice, the same will be considered by the respondent in accordance with law and appropriate decision will be taken after considering the reply of the petitioner. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the corporation has not taken any final decision in this behalf, the petitioner is granted three weeks time to file reply to the show cause notice. It will be open to the petitioner to take all available points in the reply to the show cause notice. The respondent thereafter, after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, may pass 4 appropriate order in accordance with law. It is for the respondent to consider as to whether any lesser penalty can be awarded to the petitioner, in view of the fact that he has already been promoted as Traffic Inspector. It is for the respondent to consider this aspect as well as the aspect regarding petitioner's remaining service period in the employment, as he is going to retire within a period of four years. All these aspects are left for consideration of the disciplinary authority. 8. In case such decision is against the petitioner, it will be open to him to challenge the same in accordance with law before appropriate forium. It is clarified that the respondent-corporation while taking the final decision shall not take into account the observations made by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court while deciding the complaint lodged by the petitioner and the disciplinary authority shall take its own independent decision. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. Petitioner is allowed to withdraw the petition. The petition accordingly stands disposed of as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on any of the points sought to be raised in the matter and it is for the respondent to take decision in accordance with law and as per available material on record. 5 ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )