1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.998 OF 1997 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. ...Petitioner. Vs. Ganpat Ladkya Mhatre & Anr. ...Respondents. .... None for the Petitioner. Mr. M.D. Modgi i/b. S.M. Oak for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 7, 2008. P.C.: The First Respondent was employed as a Conductor with the Petitioner. On 14th November 1991, while the First Respondent was on duty on a Bus route between Panvel and Chavna, the bus was checked by the Inspector when it had reached a particular spot. The Inspector checked the way bill, the ticket rates and cash money in the bag of the conductor and it was found that five passengers were travelling without tickets. Though the aforesaid passengers had paid an amount of Rs.5/- to the First Respondent and had received an amount of Re.1/- back from the First Respondent, no tickets had been 2 issued to them. Another group of two passengers was found travelling without tickets. A group of four passengers travelling from Panvel to Siddheshwari had not been issued tickets by the First Respondent. The way bill of the First Respondent was found closed and there was a shortage of Rs. 32.60 in the cash collection. The First Respondent was chargesheeted in a disciplinary proceeding for an act of misconduct. The Petitioner examined the reporter who had obtained the spot statement of the First Respondent employee, passengers and who had also checked the way bill. Upon conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry the First Respondent was dismissed from service. The First Respondent workman instituted a Complaint of unfair labour practices before the Labour Court Thane. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted was fair and that the misconduct was proved. However, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and directed the Petitioner to reinstate the workman without back wages. The revision filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Industrial Court. 3 2. The submission of the Petitioner as set out in the petition is that it has lost confidence in the First Respondent who has misappropriated the money of the Petitioner, which is a public body, and in the past on 20 occasions, there were lapses on his part. An act of misappropriation, it was urged, was proved and the gravity of the misconduct warranted dismissal from service. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the finding of misconduct was duly established. Once the finding was found to be established in an enquiry which was fair and proper, the Labour Court was manifestly in error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Petitioner. The charge against the First Respondent was of a serious nature and character. The past record did not contain any extranuating circumstances and on the contrary showed that he had been punished on several occasions. In these circumstances, the petition will have to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There shall be no order as to costs. ..... 4