1 wp 5917.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5917 OF 2011 The Competent Authority, M S R T C, and another .. Petitioner Versus Shantaram Arjun Patil .. Respondent Shri D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioners had initiated Departmental Enquiry against the present respondent. The punishment was imposed on the respondent by passing an order of recovery of amount of Rs. 9,900/- with reduction of basic pay by three stages. The respondent thereafter filed Complaint ULP No. 22/2010 before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon. The Industrial Court allowed the said complaint and set aside the punishment imposed on the present respondent. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2 wp 5917.11 2. Shri Bagul, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Industrial Court has not considered the report in its proper perspective. The Industrial Court has also failed to consider and appreciate the evidence before it. In fact, it is a case of perverse appreciation of evidence. The respondent is guilty of the misconduct and was rightly punished after conducting a proper Departmental Enquiry. The Industrial Court could not have set aside the same. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the impugned judgment. The Industrial Court has observed that on perusing the report of one Shri P. N. Choudhari, it transpires that the person responsible for the loss of the tickets was one Shri C. T. Chavan. The present respondent is nowhere indicted in the said report. The Industrial Court has also observed that even the respondent had made a grievance against the enquiry office and had asked for the change of the enquiry officer which request was also not taken into consideration. In view of the fact that, the report of one Shri Choudhari does not indict the present respondent, no error has been committed by the Industrial Court in allowing the said complaint. 3 wp 5917.11 4. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11