1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4865 OF 2009 Shri. Sonaji Chahagan Gavit, Age: 45 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Near Santoshi Mata Temple, Visarwadi, Tal. Navapour, District Nandurbar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport, Corporation, Division Office, Dhule, Tal. & Dist. Dhule. 2. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Office, Dhule, Tal. & Dist. Dhule. .. Respondents ... Mr. Shailesh P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioner. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 30th JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner 2 is challenging the judgment and order dated 26-10-2007 passed by Industrial Court, Dhule, in Complaint (ULP) No. 13/2007, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order of the Labour Court, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2006 whereby the Labour Court, Dhule dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal order dated 28-04-2005 passed by the respondents on the charge of absence from duty during the period from January 2004 to August 2004 for 50 days without obtaining leave from the Department and thereby many important works assigned to him could not be disposed of. 3. Undisputed facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was serving as a Clerk with the respondents since 1986 and worked in the Department of Traffic. He remained absent from duty for 50 days during the period from January 2004 to August 2004, out of which, 23 days had been treated as leave and for 3 the rest of unlawful absentism, Departmental Enquiry was held against him by the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager conducted enquiry as per Departmental Enquiry Rules. The defence of the petitioner was that he was suffering from serious ailments of T.B. and as such, he could not attend the duty during the period for which he was charge sheeted. The charges levelled against him were proved and the respondents terminated his services by order dated 28-04-2005. The petitioner's Departmental Appeal against the termination order was dismissed. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2006 before the Labour Court, Dhule. It was dismissed on 31-05-2007. Revision (ULP) No. 13/2007 filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order of the Labour Court, Dhule was dismissed by the Industrial Court, Dhule on 26-10-2007. 4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his Revision Application by the Industrial Court, 4 Dhule, the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition. 5. I have fully heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner suffered from T.B. and therefore, he could not attend the duty during period for which he was charged in the Departmental Enquiry and as such, there was sufficient cause for his absence from duty. He submitted that the Courts below failed to take the same into consideration. He also submitted that the punishment of termination of the service, awarded to the petitioner was not commensurate with the charges. According to him, punishment is excessive. 6. I have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer and the judgment of the Labourt Court and Industrial Court, Dhule. Both the Courts have considered the point now pressed in 5 this petition. They found that the petitioner did not support his defence by the medical evidence and they also took into account, while considering whether punishment meted out to the petitioner was appropriate his past unsatisfactory conduct. In the past also, on many occasions, he remained absent without obtaining leave. No Department can be run efficiently if the employees remain absent from duty without obtaining prior leave. Both the Courts have concurrently held against the petitioner on both the counts, urged before me. I see no valid reason to differ from them. Hence, there is no substance in this Writ Petition. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. Writ Petition, thus, stands disposed of, with no order as to costs. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/AUG09/wp4865.09