[1] IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.820 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 466 OF 2001 Mr.Vasant Namdeo Chavan ... Appellant. [Orig.Petitioner.] Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. ... Respondents. [Orig. Respondents.] ALONGWITH APPEAL NO. 821 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 372 OF 2001 Mr.Vasant Namdeo Chavan ... Appellant. [Orig.Petitioner.] Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. ... Respondents. [Orig. Respondents.] [2] Mrs. S.R.Kumbhat for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : January 19, 2009. : January 19, 2009. : January 19, 2009. P.C. 1. Both the Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order as both the appeals have been preferred challenging the Order, dated 3rd June, 2003 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 466 of 2001. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was an employee of a public transport authority. Two charges were levelled against him. First charge was that he was found intoxicated on duty and, second that while on duty he misbehaved with superiors. The punishment of removal was imposed. He filed a complaint against that order. When the complaint came up for hearing, on his behalf challenge to the fairness of enquiry as also to the findings that the charges have been proved was given up. Submission was made only on the question whether the punishment was [3] excessive. The Labour Court found the punishment to be excessive, granted reinstatement in service without backwages. 3. There were two Revision Applications filed before the Industrial Tribunal, one by the Conductor- employee challenging the order of withholding the backwages and another by the employer, challenging the order of reinstatement. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the Revision filed by the employer holding that the punishment was not excessive and dismissed the Revision filed by the employee. There were two petitions filed challenging the order of the Industrial Court, both by the employee, before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by detailed order has dismissed both the petitions. 4. In our opinion, considering the nature of the employment of the employee, namely, the conductor of a public transport and the nature of the charges proved, namely, being drunk on duty and misbehaviour with the superior officer, the learned Single was perfectly justified in confirming the order of the Industrial Court that the punishment was not excessive. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the [4] appellant, relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in case of VISHWANATH VS. UNION OF INDIA 2007 SCCL.COM 1235 for contending that the punishment was excessive. But in the case before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court on facts found that the misbehaviour of the employee was because of grave and sudden provocation. In the present case, we do not find any such allegation made. In our opinion, an employee of a public transport, who comes in contact with public cannot be retained in service, who was found drunk on duty. As such both the appeals are devoid of substance and therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]