W.P. 3850/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3850/2009 Gajanan Sakharam Kate, Age : 47 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Purva Lohotas, Tq Kallam, District Osmanabad. .....Petitioner. Versus 1 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Osmanabad. 2 The Chairman, Second Appellate Committee, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Pune, Station Road, Pune. ...Respondents. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 2nd May, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05th February, 2008 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint U.L.P. No.24/2007. The litigation has a checkered history and in short can be narrated as under. 2. The petitioner was working as a bus conductor with the M.S.R.T.C.. In the year 1999 the M.S.R.T.C. initiated departmental inquiry against the petitioner on allegations that he had misappropriated sum of Rs.25.50 ps.. On 16/02/2000, the M.S.R.T.C. W.P. 3850/2009 2 dismissed petitioner from service. (As against this, the petitioner filed U.L.P. Complaint No.25/2000 but the same was dismissed.) The petitioner despite dismissal of his complaint by the labour court, thereafter, on 08/10/2002 filed an appeal against the order of dismissal (dt.16/2/2000) passed by the MSRTC before respondent No.1 who happened to be the "in-house" first appellate authority. The respondent No.1 dismissed his appeal on 17/02/2003. The petitioner filed "in-house" second appeal on 04/03/2003. The Service Rules of M.S.R.T.C. provided that a delinquent could file second "in-house" appeal and the same would be heard by a 'Second appellate committee'. Respondent No.2 is the Chairman of Second Appellate Committee. 3. It is common ground that though the petitioner did not file second appeal through proper channel, it is still pending for consideration before the second appellate committee. In the mean time, on 03/12/2005 the M.S.R.T.C. issued a policy decision through a circular. It is a kind of amnesty scheme. Through this scheme, a delinquent workers/employees of M.S.R.T.C. was given opportunity to admit his guilt and to deposit certain amount as fine so as to secure pardon and to save his job. 4. The petitioner made an application to the M.S.R.T.C. on 20/12/2005 and sought appropriate relief pursuant to the circular. Initially, the M.S.R.T.C. directed petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000/- vide their order dated 02/01/2007. The petitioner immediately deposited the amount. Yet, the M.S.R.T.C. refused to give him benefit of the circular. This adverse order incidentally was passed by the respondent No.1, on 31/01/2007. The petitioner made another representation to the respondent No.1 and urged him to give him W.P. 3850/2009 3 benefit of the circular. To this, the respondent No.1 informed to the petitioner inter alia that his second appeal before the committee was pending and would be taken up for hearing according to the rules. This information was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 18/05/2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his U.L.P. No. 24/2007 but the same was dismissed on 05/02/2008. 5. I think the dismissal of the U.L.P. No.24/2007 would not make much difference to the petitioner’s second appeal which is still pending before the second appellate committee. Irrespective of whatever is stated against the petitioner in various orders passed so far, I am sure that the second appellate committee would consider the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without getting influenced by the observations of the Courts and authorities. I also expect that the second appellate committee would consider possibility of giving benefit of the circular to the petitioner, while deciding his second appeal. In view of this, rule is made absolute in terms of following order. ORDER a) Second appellate committee constituted as per rules of the M.S.R.T.C. shall decide the second appeal filed by the petitioner as per rules and as indicated above. b) The second appellate committee of which the respondent No.2 is the Chairman, shall decide the second appeal of the petitioner as early as possible and in any case within three months from today. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/2011/May2/wp3850.09/ok W.P. 3850/2009 4