1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3107 OF 1991. Sudhakar Tatyarao Kulkarni, Age 46 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Athegaon, Post Chapaner, Tq. Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through its Divisional Controller, S.T.Division, Aurangabad, At Post : Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondent. ... Mr.Pradeep Shahane, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.D.Reddy, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.03.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner 2 impugns judgment (award) rendered by learned Judge in Reference (IDA) No.49/1981. 2. The petitioner had applied for post of S.T.conductor in or about 1972. On the basis of his application, he was appointed as S.T. conductor by the Respondent - MSRTC in 1976. The petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis. He was confirmed in service in 1979. He was served with a charge-sheet on three counts. First, that he had committed cheating, or was disloyal to the MSRTC in the affairs of its work. Secondly, he committed dereliction of the administrative instructions, order or circulars. Thirdly, he failed to furnish complete and proper information regarding his previous service and in particular, he had obtained suspension allowance in period between 2.12.1975 to 26.9.1977 from the Cooperative Department where he was previously working and had been suspended during the course of service, and simultaneously had obtained the regular pay for period between 20.4.1976 to 31.9.1977 from the MSRTC and thereby had received double payment to which he was not entitled to. 3 He was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and was, therefore, removed from service. At his instance, Reference Proceedings were initiated U/s 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court held that the Domestic Inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that the charges were based on material that was placed on record. Consequently, the Reference was dismissed vide the impugned award. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. So far as non-furnishing of information in the application for the post is concerned, there is no specific charge as such nor such charge could be levelled because the petitioner had applied for post of ST conductor in 1972. There is material on record to show that he had been suspended by the Cooperative Department while he was working as the Secretary of a Cooperative Society. It is important to notice that the petitioner subsequently deposited the 4 amount drawn by him towards the suspension allowance with the Cooperative Department on 23.7.1979 after the misconduct was revealed during course of the inquiry. Considering the tenor of the charges and the material placed on record, it is amply clear that the petitioner had withdrawn amount of suspension allowance from the Cooperative Department for period between 2.12.1975 till 26.7.1977 notwithstanding the fact that he was working with the MSRTC as a ST conductor for period between 20.4.1976 to 31.1.1977 and had received regular pay as such. In other words, he suppressed the material fact that he was in service with the Cooperative Department. Mr.Shahane, would submit that he was suspended employee and, therefore, could not be regarded as a person in employment of the Cooperative Department till 26.7.1977. I do not agree. It is well settled that suspension of an employee only temporarily puts him out of the work and not out of the service as such. The petitioner was very much employee of the Cooperative Department during the suspension period and simultaneously he was working with the 5 MSRTC. This conduct of the petitioner is sufficient to demonstrate that he had exhibited disloyalty to the MSRTC. Considering the fact situation of the present case, I do not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned award and, therefore, the petition is destitute of substance. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp310791