1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1178 OF 1993 The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar Division, Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Ramesh S. Pardeshi At & Post.Shrirampur, Deokar Wasti, Anusaya Sada, Sarswati Colony, Ward No.7, Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENT ..... Mr. M.K. Goyanka, advocate for petitioner. Mr. L.N. Lokhande, advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 11 st August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner-M.S.R.T.C. challenges the judgment and order dated 10th August, 1992, rendered by the Presiding Officer of 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No.24/1989. By that judgment and order, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent and modified the penalty imposed on him. Instead of dismissal, the Labour Court directed penalty of withholding of one increment payable to the respondent and also directed that the reinstatement may be effected with 50% of the back wages for the period from the date of dismissal till the 2 reinstatement. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was working as S.T. bus conductor on the establishment of the petitioner-M.S.R.T.C. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent has been reinstated after the impugned judgment. He has retired from the service in 2001. 3. The charge against the respondent was that on 06.07.1987, when the S.T. bus, on which he was working in the relevant noon, was intercepted and checked by Flying Squad then there was excess cash amount of Rs.13/- with him. He had wrongly punched two tickets issued to the two passengers of Rs. 4.20 paise each. The incident occurred after the S.T. bus had left Rahuri Bus stop. The contention of the petitioner was that after due enquiry, the respondent was terminated from service because he had committed misappropriation of the amount and intentionally had issued two tickets which were wrongly punched with a view to use them during return trip. The learned Judge of the Labour Court held that the termination of the respondent was illegal and improper and as such interfered with the order of the dismissal. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, however, came to the conclusion that the respondent committed mistake while issuing 3 the wrongly punched tickets, and therefore, was liable for minor penalty. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment with the help of learned counsel for the parties. 5. At the out set, let it be noted that the S.T. bus was being plied on Shrirampur-Chanda route. The S.T. bus was to travel via Rahuri, Sonai and other stops during the journey period. It has come on record that when the S.T. bus reached at Rahuri many passengers alighted and a large number of passengers entered the S.T. bus. The respondent was required to issue tickets to 60 passengers. Besides, there were 17 regular pass holders i.e. students of the Schools and Colleges at Rahuri. It is of common knowledge that there is Agricultural University and College at Rahuri. It is but natural that due to such large crowd of passengers in the S.T. bus, the respondent was required to issue number of tickets. In other words, he was overloaded with the work at the relevant time. According to the respondent, after the S.T. bus left Rahuri, S.T. bus driver had stopped the vehicle in the midway. The driver had asked him to allow the passengers to board because there was infant with them. By that time, he had closed the way till 4 at Rahuri stop, and therefore, the tickets were issued to such passengers for the value of fare from Rahuri to Chanda though the amounts were not accounted for in the way bill which was already closed at Rahuri. 6. So far as the question of fastening the responsibility is concerned, the learned Judge of the Labour Court duly considered the statement of passengers and surrounding circumstances. The findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Labour Court can not be regarded as perverse and particularly when the explanation of the respondent was found to be acceptable. It is proved that certain excess cash amount was found with him. At the same time, it can not be overlooked that the respondent was overloaded with the work due to boarding of large number of passengers at Rahuri S.T. stop. Human fallibility and error, in the given circumstances, can not be overlooked in such case. 7. Considering the foregoing reasons and having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by the petitioner-M.S.R.T.C. it is difficult to say that the impugned judgment and order is perverse. No interference is, therefore, called for. The Petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. 5 8. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition itself, nothing survives in Civil Application No.6602/2010, and hence same stands dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp1178.93