IN WP 4478 OF 2023 - BOM HC - Findings of Inquiry Officer cannot be termed as perverse merely for non-examination of passengers from whom the conductor collected fare but did not issue tickets: Bombay High Court holds that once misappropriation is established, punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate
Justice N.J. Jamadar [17.07.2023]

Read More : Subhash Gulabchand Pawar v Maharashtra State Road Transport

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 18, 2023: Dismissing the writ petition against the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed by a Conductor who was accused of committing misappropriation, the Bombay High Court vacated the interim protection granted to him and further directed the Labor Court at Kolhapur to decide the unfair labor practices complaint on its own merits.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar, while referring to State of Haryana v Rattan Singh, held that non-examination of passengers was not required to prove misconduct of a conductor. The findings could not be termed perverse merely for that reason and given the petitioner’s past punishments , the proposed punishment of dismissal was also not disproportionate.

It was of the view that “…it is too late in the day to urge that the findings of the Inquiry Officer can be termed as perverse merely for non-examination for the passengers from whom the complainant allegedly collected fare but did not issue tickets. The aforesaid pronouncements also indicate that once misappropriation is established, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate, albiet, regard should be had to be circumstances of the given case, including the past conduct of the delinquent.”

The Bench took note of the fact that the Courts below had noted that in addition to the misconduct in question there were nine punishments to credit of the complainant. Therefore, the proposed punishment could not  be said to be prima facie grossly disproportionate. “In my view, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were justified in declining to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.”

In the matter at hand, the petitioner had been working as a Conductor with the Corporation since 2006. In 2014, an inspection squad found several discrepancies in his bus, including the fact that he had accepted fare from 4 passengers without issuing tickets and thereby committing misappropriation. The squad had further found the cash balance to be short by Rs. 935.

Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings were held. After the inquiry report, he was issued a show cause notice for dismissal. A complaint was filed alleging unfair labour practices under Item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Act of 1971). It was alleged, inter alia, that the proposed punishment of dismissal was prima facie illegal and by way of victimisation and was also shockingly disproportionate.

An application was preferred for interim relief seeking to restrain the respondent corporation from imposing any penalty against the petitioner till the final decision. The Labor Court and Industrial Court had found, prima facie that the inquiry was fair and findings were not perverse which led to the petitioner file the present writ petition.

The issue for consideration was that whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection during the pendency of the complaint of unfair labour practice. Since the interim protection had been in operation right from the filing of complaint, the Court considered it appropriate to delve into the aspect of entitlement to and continuation of interim protection though there were concurrent decisions holding that the petitioner did not deserve the exercise of discretion in his favour.

Broadly, there were three grounds on which the petitioner sought interim relief.

1. The enquiry was not fair and proper.
2. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse.
3. The proposed penalty was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct.

The Court stated that the Labour Court and Industrial Court had recorded a prima facie finding that the Corporation adhered to the prescriptions in Discipline and Appeal rules and the principles of natural justice. The complainant was provided an efficacious opportunity of hearing. “Prima facie, there is no substance in the contention on behalf of the complainant that the enquiry was not fair and proper.”