SUHAS RAGHUNATH MORE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Original Complainant challenging legality of judgment and order passed in complaint (ULP) No. 31 of 1999 by the Labour Court, Kolhapur whereby relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages is refused by dismissing the complaint. Admittedly, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant") was working with present Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the S.T. Corporation") as a conductor from the year 1988. He was on duty on 19th September, 1998 on Solapur to Ratnagiri route. His bus was checked by the checking squad at Nagoji Phata. On the basis of report of the checking squad he was charge -sheeted on 28th September, 1998 alleging misconducts under clauses 7(e) (resale or re -issue of used tickets), 7(f) (under issuance of tickets), 12 -(theft) and 22 -(breach of administrative orders) of discipline and appeal procedure. The Complainant denied the charges and then an enquiry took place. In the enquiry, only Reporting Authority was examined. The Enquiry Officer, on competition of enquiry held that all charges are proved. The Complainant was served with show cause notice dated 8th February, 1999 calling upon him as to why he should not be dismissed.

(2.) IT is case of the Complainant that enquiry made against the Complainant was a farce as the Enquiry Officer acted as Prosecutor -cam -Judge. No proper opportunity of being heard was given and the enquiry is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Only reported was examined and hence findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. In fact, his explanation is bona fide one and he ought to have been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. In addition, his past service record is clean and proposed punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. Consequently, he prayed to set aside the enquiry and show cause notice, to restraining the State Transport Corporation from taking any action as per the show cause notice and other consequential relief s.

(3.) THE Complainant produced enquiry papers and show cause notice. The Transport Corporation produced entire enquiry papers and Complainant's default card. Both Advocate filed a pursis (Ex. CU -14) that they do not want to lead oral evidence.