-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5402 OF 2008 A.N. Patil ... Petitioner versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another .. Respondents Mr. L.A. Sawant for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Hegde for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 24, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd February, 2007, passed by the Labour Court, Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No. 331 of 2002. The first Labour Court dismissed the said complaint and a revision against that order was also dismissed by the revisional Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was subjected to departmental enquiry in connection with the alleged misconduct and the competent authority as back as on 4th September, 1999 passed an order of punishment by which one increment of the petitioner was stopped with cumulative effect for the period of six months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against that order was also dismissed by the appellate authority. -2- However, subsequently, according to the petitioner, the reviewing authority has taken the original order of the competent authority dated 4th September, 1999 in suo motu revision for enhancing the penalty and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25th November, 2002, by which the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why penalty imposed by the competent authority should not be reviewed and why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service. The said show cause notice was the subject matter of complaint before the Labour Court and as pointed out earlier the complaint was dismissed and revision was also dismissed. The said order is impugned in this petition. 3. Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since the original order was passed by the competent authority as back as in the year 1999, the higher authority could not have taken the said order in suo motu proceedings in 2002. It is submitted that simply because the petitioner had filed an appeal itself is no ground by which the period of one year prescribed under Clause 9 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure can be said to have been extended. It is, therefore, submitted that the show cause notice could not have been issued especially when the order of punishment has been suffered by the petitioner and period of punishment is also over. However, considering the fact that the revisional authority/ reviewing authority has not passed any final order, Mr. Sawant submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file detailed reply to the said -3- show cause notice, taking all available points as per law. In order to avail the said opportunity of submitting the case before the reviewing authority, Mr. Sawant submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition. Permission granted. The petitioner is permitted to reply to the show cause notice to the authority within a period of three weeks from today. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all available points including ground of limitation in his reply as well as jurisdiction of reviewing authority or officer to issue such notice. The concerned authority thereafter, after considering the said reply and after hearing the petitioner on the subject matter shall take appropriate decision on such notice in accordance with law. It is needless to state that if the final decision is against the petitioner, it will be open to him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law on all available points. 4. In view of this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw not only this petition but also the original complaint itself. He further submitted that even otherwise in case the final order is passed against the petitioner by the reviewing authority, that will be a fresh cause of action. Therefore, he should be permitted to challenge the order on all available points. Considering the above, while allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition, in view of what is stated above, the petitioner is also permitted to withdraw the original complaint. The said complaint as also the revision shall not survive. The reviewing authority shall -4- decide the show cause notice in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made either by the Labour Court or by the revisional Court while deciding the complaint or the revision or even by this Court. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.