( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 967 OF 2011 Ramlal s/o. Sukhlal Banswal, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. House No. 5-11-1, .. Petitioner Opposite Sant Tukaram Hospital, (Original Padampura, Aurangabad. complainant) versus The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Office, .. Respondents Pushpnagari, Aurangabad, (Original and another. respondents) ....................... Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 ( 2 ) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Malte, for the petitioner. 2. The contention is, passengers whose statements were recorded on the spot, ought to have been examined at least before Inquiry Officer, if not, before Labour Court. As passengers are not made available for cross examination, principles of natural justice are violated. The other contention is, amount of Rs. 13/- was found short with the petitioner while checking and hence punishment of dismissal for such shortage is shockingly disproportionate. It is urged that he was in service since 1981. 3. Hon. Apex Court in the judgment reported at AIR 1977 SC 1512, in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Rattan Singh, has held that passengers need not be examined in such matters. The Labour Court, as also, Industrial Court have found that the misconduct is rightly found proved by the Inquiry Officer. There are 16 past instances (past service record). Considering all this material, punishment of dismissal has been upheld. Shortage of amount by itself is not indication of innocence of petitioner. The consideration cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. No case is made out warring interference in this jurisdiction. ( 3 ) 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp967