NARAYAN BAPUJI DHOTE Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The grievance made by the petitioner in this case is that misconduct is not at all established inasmuch as his defence that when he demanded fare amount of 80 ps. from the passenger, said passenger offered only 60 ps. and hence he did not even accept 60 ps. from that passenger, has not at all been considered. It is further stated that the Industrial Court has given undue importance only to past service record and has not considered the facts of the case and this has resulted in denial of opportunity of remedy of revision to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention to the charge sheet and also to reply filed by the petitioner to that charge sheet and argues that as defence of petitioner has not been considered at all, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer must be held to be perverse. Lastly, it is argued that in any case only for carrying one passenger without ticket or for not collecting luggage fare, punishment of dismissal of service ought not to have been imposed. It is contended that punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

(3.) Shri Wankhede, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that the defence about the alleged dispute with the passenger has been evolved by way of after thought and the petitioner has not taken any such defence in his spot statement. He further states that he started bus without collecting fare and there is no explanation to this behaviour. He has invited attention to the spot statement and also to the cash verification form to point out that even M. S. R. T. C. cash with him was found to be less and there is no reply to this even in reply to charge sheet by the petitioner. He argues that in these circumstances, both the Courts below have concurrently held that misconduct is proved. According to him, therefore, no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. He states that looking to the gravity of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal was imposed on him. He has invited attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 26.7.2006 in Letters Patent Appeal No.168 of 1995 (Divisional Controller, M. S. R. T. C. vs. Pramod Onkarrao Deshmukh) (reported in 2007 (2) 176) and to the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of U. P. S. R. T. C. Dehradun vs. Suresh Pal, 2006 9 Scale 481.