1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.136 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2471 OF 2009 Mahadeo s/o Limbaji Mutkule, R/o- At Post Vasa, Tq-Jintoor, Dist-Parbhani. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Parbhani Division, At Parbhani, Through its Divisional Transport Officer, (Competent Authority), Parbhani, Tq. and Dist-Parbhani. 2) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Parbhani Division, Parbhani, Through Divisional Controller, Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Appellant. Shri.A.D. Wange, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order dated 6th July 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J.) in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 2471 of 2009. 3. The Appellant conductor who was appointed in the year 1987 with the Respondent M.S.R.T.C. was charged on the grounds that i) he did not issue tickets to the passengers, ii) he utilized the tickets which were already used in the earlier journey, and iii) excess money of Rs.115/- was found with him. After departmental enquiry was conducted, notice of dismissal was issued. The Appellant approached the Labour Court by filing Complaint. By a Judgment and Order dated 18th February, 2008, the Labour Court allowed the complaint and set aside the notice of dismissal 3 dated 25th May, 2006. 4. The Respondent M.S.R.T.C. filed Revision Petition to the Industrial Court. By Judgment and order dated 25th March, 2009, the Industrial Court allowed the Revision and dismissed the complaint of the Appellant. The Appellant preferred Writ Petition to the High Court bearing Writ Petition No.2471 of 2009. The learned Single Judge issued notices and by way of ad interim order, interim protection granted by the Industrial Court was continued until further orders. By an order dated 6th July 2009, the learned Single Judge admitted the Petition and after hearing the parties, observed that no case was made out for grant of ad interim relief, hence prayer for interim relief was rejected. 5. Shri. Thombre, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Labour Court had appreciated the evidence and had reached appropriate conclusions in allowing the Complaint. 4 The Revisional Court in excess of its jurisdiction, re-appreciated the evidence and allowed the Revision Petition. The counsel submits that the Department had issued notice of dismissal mainly on the basis of the statement of the Appellant recorded by the officer concerned. There is no convincing evidence in support of the charges levelled. In the facts of the case, the counsel submits, that the Labour Court's Judgment ought to have been maintained. In respect of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the counsel submits that it is an unreasoned order. The counsel submits that in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases, Page 732, the learned Single Judge ought to have given reasons for rejecting request for grant of interim relief, more so when the Writ Petition was admitted. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 5 Respondent M.S.R.T.C. placed before us Discipline and Appeal Rules. The counsel submits that there was sufficient evidence on record establishing guilt of the Appellant. Both the Courts i.e. Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court, found that there was no case for continuing the Appellant in service and therefore, the learned Single Judge rejected the request for continuing interim relief. The counsel submitted that affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent Corporation, wherein it was pleaded that the Appellant had committed misconduct for more than 20 times and had suffered minor punishments but he did not improve. 7. We have perused the Judgments and orders of the lower Court and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant interim protection to the Appellant. We have perused the Reported Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity 6 and others, cited supra. We have perused the Discipline and Appeal Rules. The Discipline and Appeal Rules provide punishment of dismissal in respect of misconduct under Clause 7(A), if it is found that the employee did not issue tickets without sufficient reason or allowed the passengers to travel without ticket. The Authorities concerned had recorded statements of the Appellant and the enquiry officer had also gone through the evidence and thereafter notice for dismissal was issued to the Appellant. 8. From the available material placed on record, the learned Single Judge had taken a view not to continue the interim relief though the Writ Petition was admitted. We do not notice any perversity in refusing interim protection to the Appellant's services by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made by us in this Order, shall not affect the merits of the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant. 7 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant, at this stage, prayed for continuation of the interim relief for a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for Respondent Corporation opposes the request. We are not convinced to continue the interim protection. The request stands rejected. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV10/lpa136.09