.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.187 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8884 OF 2007 Shri Vasant B. Araj. ..Appellant (Orig.Respondent) Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. ..Respondent. (Orig.Petitioner) .... Mr.I.R.Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.G.S. Hegde, Advocate for the respondent. .... CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant - orig. respondent and the learned Counsel for the respondent - orig.petitioner. 2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 11.3.2008 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8884 of 2007. By the said order, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent came to be allowed. 3. The appellant joined the service of the respondent - Maharashtra State Road Transport .{2}. Corporation as a Bus Conductor in the year, 1977. He came to be dismissed from service. Hence,he filed complaint before the lower Court. The said complaint as well as the application for interim relief came to be rejected. The appellant challenged the order of the Labour Court by filing revision before the Industrial Court. The revision came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court by order dated 20.1.1993. The said order came to be challenged by the appellant in this Court by filing Writ Petition No.74 of 1998. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed by order dated 18.3.1998. 4. The appellant came to be dismissed from service by way of punishment for misconduct as per order dated 18.4.1998. He submitted a departmental appeal which came to be dismissed on 22.6.1998. The appellant preferred Second Appeal which came to be dismissed on 29.9.1998. He then preferred a representation to the Government Labour Officer dated 24.11.1998 with the demand for reinstatement and continuity in service and full backwages. This was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the appellant was not fair and proper and the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. The .{3}. Labour Court held that the Corporation could not prove the charge of misconduct and hence set-aside the order of dismissal. Being aggrieved thereby, Writ Petition No.8884 of 2007 came to be preferred by the Corporation before this Court. The said Writ Petition came to be allowed by order dated 11th March, 2008 and the award came to be set-aside. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11th March, 2008, this LPA has been preferred. 5. The charge against the appellant is that on 20th November, 1992 he was on duty as the Conductor. At stage No.24 i.e. at Amboli a squad of the Corporation found that a group of 50 passengers were getting down from the bus and they had not been issued bus-tickets. They found that the appellant was trying to hand over a bundle of tickets to the group-leader after the checker had entered the bus. These tickets came to be snatched from the hands of the appellant by the checker and he found 54 unpunched tickets from two different groups but of the same denomination. The statements of 50 passengers came to be recorded. In the statement, the group-leader Shri Dumada stated that he had handed over a note of Rs.100/- to the conductor and asked for 50 tickets from Torangaon (stage No.23) to .{4}. Amboli (stage No.24), but, the conductor did not issue the tickets and he did not return the balance amount of Rs.37.50 paise till the squad entered the bus. It is pertinent to note that during the search, it was found that the appellant was found with excess cash of Rs.43.80 paise in his cash box. On account of this incident, charge-sheet came to be issued against the appellant and departmental enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted his report and the appellant was issued show-cause notice on 21.1.1993 proposing the punishment of dismissal. Ultimately the appellant came to be dismissed from service by way of punishment by order dated 18.4.1998. 6. The Labour Court held that the Corporation could not prove the charge that the appellant had issued the tickets to the passengers after he noticed that the Inspector from the squad had entered the bus. The case of the appellant is that at Torangaon 54 passengers got into the bus and their group leader Shri Dumada had handed over Rs.100/-. He issued 54 tickets, but, he did not return the cash and while he was handing over the balance, the checker entered the bus. He claimed that the bus was overcrowded, hence he could not issue the tickets and hand over the .{5}. balance. The statements of group-leader Dumada and other passengers show that when Mr.Dumada handed over Rs.100/-, the appellant did not give him the tickets nor did the appellant give the balance amount of Rs.37.50 paise to him. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was found to have surplus money of Rs.43.80 paise. 7. As per the witness of the Corporation in all 69 passengers were in the bus when it was checked at Amboli and 19 of them were with tickets and 50 were not issued tickets. Those 50 passengers had boarded the bus at village Torangaon and the distance between Torangaon and Amboli was 6 kms. All the 50 passengers signed the statement to the above effect. In all 54 tickets were found in the hand of the appellant. They were all unpunched. In the first set there were 26 tickets starting with no.879074 and ending with 879099. All these tickets were of the denomination of Rs.1.25 paise. In the second set, there were 28 tickets of the same denomination i.e. Rs.1.25 paise but starting with no.202500 and ending with no.202527. All these 54 tickets were in the denomination of Rs.1.25 paise. It is an admitted fact that all these tickets were unpunched. The statements of the witnesses as well as the spot .{6}. panchnama show that no tickets were handed over to Shri Dumada nor was the balance amount paid to Shri Dumada. 8. It is an admitted fact that all the 54 tickets were unpunched. The case of the appellant is that he had issued the tickets and while he was handing over the same to Shri Dumada, the checker snatched the tickets from him. This stand cannot be accepted for the basic reason that the tickets were unpunched. Obviously a conductor would not hand over any unpunched tickets to any passenger, leave alone 54 unpunched tickets. Therefore the stand of the appellant that just when he was handing over the tickets to Shri Dumada, the checker snatched away the tickets from him cannot be accepted. The defence taken by the appellant is not supported by any evidence. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the checker Shri K.K.Jadhav was an active union leader and hence he has falsely recorded some of the documents. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the overwriting on the way-bills. It is submitted that the said overwriting was made by Shri.K.K.Jadhav so as to falsely involve the .{7}. appellant. It was submitted that Shri K.K. Jadhav on account of overwriting was subsequently dismissed from service of the Corporation and hence he was not a reliable witness. However, looking to the evidence on record, we find that in this case, the way-bill does not have much significance. Hence, assuming that there was some overwriting on the way bill, it would not affect the matter. 10. It has been fairly admitted by the appellant that the balance amount of Rs.37.50 paise was returned to the group leader by Shri Jadhav from the excess cash recovered from the appellant. When it is not disputed that the balance to be returned to Shri Dumade was Rs.37.50 paise, the conductor was required to issue only 50 tickets and not 54 of the denomination of Rs.1.25 each. This is an additional reason to hold that no tickets were issued to Shri Dumada before the squad entered the bus and by way of a cover up action, the appellant had hurriedly taken out 54 tickets and was trying to hand them over to Shri Dumada when they were snatched by Shri Jadhav. 11. Looking to the evidence on record, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the charges levelled against the appellant were duly proved .{8}. before the enquiry officer as well as the Labour Court. Both the Appellate Authorities as well as the learned Single Judge have considered the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the seriousness of the charges and the past record of service of the appellant. It is seen that the past record of service is far from being satisfactory. There are as many as 8 instances of punishment awarded to the appellant and 6 of them pertain to the issuance of tickets to the passengers. 12. In view of the evidence on record, we see no error or any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the award. Moreover, in view of the past record of service of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in observing that it is not proper to interfere with the punishment of dismissal. 13. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]