BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBAY & ORS Vs. JIJABA NAMDEO BORUDE (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) KAMAL JIJABA BORUDE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd February 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The respondent was working with the appellantBombay Port Trust since 1989. While discharging his duties as officiating Labour Supervisor at Uncleared Warehouse No.1, he was chargesheeted for the alleged misconduct. It is submitted that on 1st January 1986 at about 03.40 p.m. one lorry bearing registration No.9468 parked near the B.P.T. wall side was found loaded with cargo wooden boxes. As driver of the lorry was asked to produce the documents in support of cargo loaded in the lorry, he failed to produce any document in respect of cargo loaded in the lorry. On inquiry, some wooden boxes containing video games were found in it. The police was informed. On inquiry by the police, the driver pointed out one person who happened to be the present respondent, who was working as a Supervisor at the relevant time. On complaint, FIR was registered being case No.453 P/86. The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, trial Court acquitted the respondent by a judgment and order dated 12th June 1987.

(2.) Appellant conducted domestic enquiry against the respondent. After completion of inquiry, report was submitted to the appellant. Appellant accepted the report of the office and dismissed the respondent from services by an order dated 2nd January 1990. Appeal, which was filed by the respondent against the said order, came to be dismissed by respondent No.6. The respondent challenged the said order of dismissal passed by the respondent No.6. By a judgment and order dated 23rd February 1995 the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition and the dismissal order was quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent No.2 to reinstate the respondent on his original post with all back wages and consequential benefits.

(3.) The appellant preferred the present appeal against the said order dated 23rd February 1995. The appeal came to be admitted in the year 1995 and notice of motion No.3136 of 1995 was preferred. On 22nd April 1996, the appellate Court passed the following order: