DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC SUPDT , MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAMKRISHNA S/O DYANOBA RACHMALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally.

(2.) THE petitioner M.S.R.T.C. had levelled allegations against the respondent employee, who was a conductor. Charges pertain to nonissuance of tickets or reissuance of tickets, allowing passengers to travel ticketless or having issued tickets with lesser fare etc. After conducting a domestic enquiry, the charges were proved under Clause 7(d), 12(b) and 28 of The Discipline and Appeal Procedure Rules. An order of dismissal dated 25/03/2003 was issued.

(3.) THE respondent challenged his dismissal order dated 25/03/2003 by filing complaint ULP No.3/2005 before the Labour Court at Nanded. Written statement was filed by the petitioner on 08/09/2005. In paragraph No.8 of the written statement, the petitioner had stated as under, "In case this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is not fair and proper, the respondents may be allowed to lead fresh evidence before this Hon'ble Court, to prove the charges levelled against the complainant.".