: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 WRIT PETITION NO.7123 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.7123 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.7123 OF 2005 Ravindra V. Shinde ...Petitioner. Versus The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., and Ors. ...Respondents. Shri Hiranandani i/b Shri Gavnekar for the Petitioner. Shri C.M.Lokesh i/b Shri Hegde for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2006. DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2006. DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2006. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. I have perused the order passed by the Disciplinary Authorities of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.,. 3. The petitioner has been dismissed from the services for mis-conduct, after being dealt with in accordance with the Discipline and Appeals Rules. The petitioner has been charged with resale of 10 tickets of Rs.40/- denominations and similarly having punched 11 passenger tickets. One passenger ticket was used :2: for luggage. The Bus was inspected by the Inspector and, thereafter, a chargesheet was drawn. The reply of the petitioner thereto was considered. The Divisional Administrator’s order refers to the fact that during the course of hearing, petitioner has accepted the charge. There is an explanation given by him. The said explanation is not found to be satisfactory by two Appellate Authorities. The Authorities have also considered the fact that the mis-conduct is serious enough to warrant extreme punishment. The discussion in that behalf is to be found at Page-31 of the paper-book in the order passed by the second Appellate Committee. It is not for the first time that the petitioner was found to be indulging in such acts. 4. In these circumstances, there is no warrant for interference with the orders under challenge. The same cannot be termed as vitiated by any error apparent or perversity, warranting interference in my jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. ( S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) ( S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) ( S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)