RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Syed Saheblal Syed Nijam – Respondent
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner/Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31/10/2014 by which Complaint (ULP) No.12/2007 filed by the respondent/employee has been allowed and the impugned order of punishment dated 12/03/2005 directing stoppage of 3 increments permanently, has been set aside. Costs of Rs.5,000/has been awarded to the respondent.
3. I have heard Mr.Bagul, learned Advocate for the petitioner/Corporation and Mr.Muley, learned Advocate for the respondent at length.
4. The respondent/employee was working as a Driver with the petitioner/Corporation. He was charge sheeted on 06/09/2002 on the basis of a complaint that he had outraged the modesty of a lady passenger during the night journey in the bus. After conducting a departmental enquiry, the order imposing punishment was issued and the respondent was awarded the punishment of permanent stoppage of 3 increments. By order dated 12/03/2005, the first department appeal preferred by the respondent was partly allowed and the order of permanent stoppage of 3 increments was reduced to permanent stoppage of 2 increments. The respond
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.