Under Rule 18, the Disciplinary Authority is competent to conduct an enquiry and to punish the employee.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. By this petition petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon rejecting the Revision preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon recording finding on the preliminary issue of enquiry being conducted in fair and legal manner and findings in the enquiry report being supported by the evidence.

3. Appearing for petitioner, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel would submit that the issue of the Disciplinary Authority himself acting as an Enquiry Officer was specifically raised in the complaint filed before the Labour Court which has been completely ignored by the Labour Court in its judgment and order dated 02.07.2019. He would further submit that in such a situation the Industrial Court ought to have remanded the matter back to the Labour Court, but instead the Industrial Court proceeded to decide that point itself. He would further submit that under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Disciplinary Authority initiating enquiry is not competent to act in capacity as Enquiry Officer. Mr. Shinde, would further contend that, the Disciplinary Authority not only acted as Enquiry Officer but committed further illegality in acting as Presenting Officer by putting questions to the witnesses. He would, therefore, submit that the same officer for multiple roles in the enquiry which is impermissible in law. In support of his contentions Mr. Shinde would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Wardha vs. Rajendra Mohanlal Chhangani, 2019 Near Law (Bombay) Online 3069.

4. Mr. Shinde would further submit that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by an incompetent authority in that petitioner’s appointing authority is Divisional Controller whereas the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by Divisional Traffic Superintendent. This according to him violates the provisions of Rule 18. Mr. Shinde would further question the findings recorded by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court with regard to the proof of charges.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, in my view no case is made out for interference in the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The first point raised by Mr. Shinde about the same officer performing multiple roles in the disciplinary proceeding deserves outright rejection. Under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is competent to conduct an enquiry and to punish the employee. Therefore, under the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is fully empowered to himself conduct an enquiry against the delinquent employee.

6. So far as the issue of Disciplinary Authority performing role of Presenting Officer by asking questions to the witnesses is concerned, this issue was not raised by petitioner either during the course of enquiry or in his complaint filed before the Labour Court. The petitioner is, therefore, estopped from raising this plea directly before this Court. Even otherwise, petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice being caused to him on account of Disciplinary Authority performing role of Presenting Officer. It is trite that, mere minor infraction of principles of natural justice would not render the enquiry invalid in absence of prejudice being caused to delinquent employee.

7. Coming to the next issue of initiation of disciplinary proceeding by an incompetent authority, again this issue is not raised either during the course of enquiry or in the complaint filed by petitioner before the Labour Court. Both the Labour Court and Industrial Court had no occasion to deal with this issue. Therefore, petitioner i