Sanjay vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The present petition challenges the judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Complaint (ULP) No.09/2012, whereby the complaint filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed. The Petitioner also challenges the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by Respondent No.2, whereby his basic pay was permanently reduced by two stages with cumulative effect.

The facts as can be seen from the memo of the petition are as under:

The Petitioner was working as a Conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation at Gadchiroli Depot and was at the verge of retirement. On 03.06.2008, while he was working on the Gadchiroli to Bedgaon route, his bus was checked by the checking staff at Garapatti and four passengers were found travelling without tickets. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 30.12.2008 was issued to the Petitioner under Clauses C.22 and C.41 of Schedule ‘A’ of the Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure. The allegation was that on 17.06.2008 the Petitioner had approached the Lokmat newspaper and got a news item published alleging that Shri V.N. Batve, member of the checking staff, had prepared a false case against him as he had refused to pay a bribe of Rs.20,000/-.

Charge-sheet was issued on 30.12.2008. The Petitioner submitted his reply dated 15.06.2009 and denied having approached the newspaper or given any news for publication. He stated that Shri Batve had demanded Rs.20,000/- for changing the remark regarding the incident dated 03.06.2008, which demand he had refused. A departmental enquiry was thereafter conducted. The Petitioner admitted that four passengers were found without tickets and that the news item was published in Lokmat on 17.06.2008. But he denied that he had given the information to the newspaper. He stated that the reporter had overheard the discussion at a newspaper stand. The enquiry proceedings also record that the Petitioner did not wish to cross-examine the reporter.

By order dated 31.10.2011, Respondent No.2 held the charges to be proved and imposed the punishment of permanent reduction of the Petitioner's basic pay by two stages with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.09/2012 before the learned Industrial Court, Chandrapur on 23.01.2012 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2013.

The brief facts further show that the present petition was filed on 04.10.2022, i.e. after 9 years and 15 days or (3302 days) from the judgment of the Industrial Court. The Petitioner has sought condonation of delay, submitting that the punishment would seriously affect his retiral benefits, including gratuity, provident fund and other financial benefits.

I have heard Mr. C. V Jagdale learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Gawai, learned counsel for the respondent(s).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Court erred in holding that the enquiry was fair and proper. It is submitted that the reporter or any person from the newspaper agency was not examined to prove that the Petitioner had given the news published in Lokmat on 17.06.2008. It is further submitted that there was no direct evidence to show that the Petitioner had approached the newspaper or caused the publication. It is also submitted that no enquiry was conducted into the Petitioner's allegation that Shri Batve had demanded Rs.20,000/- from him.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The judgment under challenge is dated 19.09.2013, whereas the petition was filed on 04.10.2022 after 3302 days and there is no proper explanation for such delay. It is further submitted that the Petitioner's service record is not clean and unblemished and that he is a habitual offender. Reliance is placed upon the default card produced as Annexure R-1.

It is further submitted that the Petitioner himself admitted that four passengers were found without tickets and that the misconduct was proved in the departmental enquiry. The Petitioner had also made allegations of bribery against Shri Batve in his reply to the charge-sheet. The newspaper report contained details regarding the names of the persons concerned, route and dates and, according to the Respondents, these details could have been supplied only by the Petitioner. Reliance is also placed upon the findings of the competent authority at Annexure R-2. It is submitted that the Petitioner was supplied the necessary documents and was given full opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine the witnesses.

In the view of the arguments canvased by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the question which arises for consideration is whether the Industrial Court was justified in upholding the findings of the departmental enquiry, particularly when there was no direct evidence to show that the Petitioner had given the news item published in Lokmat on 17.06.2008. The question also arises as to whether the punishment of permanent reduction of basic pay by two stages with cumulative effect is justified and whether the petition filed after a delay of 3302 days can be entertained.

I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsels for the respective parties and with their able assistance gone through the record. It is not in dispute that the charge sheet was served on 30.12.2008 and the punishment order was issued on 31.10.2011, whereby two annual increments of the complainant was reduced permanently with cumulative effect. The judgment of the Industrial Court was passed on 19.09.2013 while the present petition is filed on 30.09.2022. No reason is mentioned in the petition to approach this Court belatedly, i.e., after about 9 years.

As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court, in a judgment in Writ Petition No. 5989/2023 in the case of The Divisional Controller, The Maharashtra State Road Transport, Amravati Vs. Devendra Baburao Khobragade, has categorically held that even though the issue of limitation was not framed, the same can be raised if it is borne out of the record. Furthermore, in the same judgment, this Court also held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a judgment reported in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, 2008 (1) SCC 115, held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding misconduct was not open to challenge by the delinquent employee once he admitted the correctness or legality of the enquiry.

The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2021 12 Scale 35, The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Surji Devi, wherein, in paragraph 5 thereof, it has been held that once it is held that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches, the merits are not required to be considered. A somewhat similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, reported in 2024 III CLR 243.

Even though there cannot be any limitation for filing a writ petition, it would not mean that a litigant can approach this Court at his own sweet will. Admittedly, the judgment which is impugned was passed on 23.01.2012. There is no explanation in the petition for approaching this Court belatedly.

Furthermore, even on merits, the Industrial Court has rightly recorded a finding regarding the misconduct of the employee, i.e., the petitioner herein. It has gone on to observe that the findings of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 76 of 2008 were never challenged by the present petitioner.

The findings of the Industrial Court, not being perverse in any manner, also do not call for any interference in supervisory jurisdiction. The writ petition is meritless and is liable to be rejected.

The petition is accordingly rejected.

Rule is discharged.