The distinction between standard of proof in criminal versus departmental inquiries is crucial; acquittal in criminal cases does not automatically invalidate findings in disciplinary actions based on the preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

This writ petition filed by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation challenging Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2017 passed by Industrial Court No.1 Kolhapur in complaint (ULP) No.88 of 2016. By that order, the Industrial Court has partly allowed the complaint filed by Respondent challenging Order dated 12.07.2016 by which penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect is imposed on him.

2. Respondent is employed in the services of the Petitioner corporation on the post of Driver. On 12.03.2015, he was deployed on duty to drive bus on Panji-Pune route. A surprise check was conducted by the Excise Department at 1:45 A.M. by intercepting the bus. The raiding team found a box containing 12 bottles of liquor behind the seat of the Driver. Since Respondent was driving the bus, he was taken into custody by Excise Department for interrogation. The concerned Excise Officer prepared a Panchnama in presence of witnesses and seized the box of liquor valued at Rs. 6,400/-. The Excise Department lodged prosecution against Respondent under Section 65 (E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. In that criminal case, Respondent came to be acquitted on 29.12.2015.

3. In the meantime, Respondent was suspended from service on 13.3.2015. After conducting preliminary enquiry, Memorandum of chargesheet was issued to Respondent on 9th May 2015 alleging the charge of recovery box containing 10 liquor bottles of valued of Rs.6,400/-. in the driver cabin behind his seat. It was alleged that the said conduct resulted in lodging of prosecution in criminal case.

4. Respondent replied the chargesheet on 12.05.2015. His suspension was invoked on 14.05.2015. After conduct of enquiry, report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted holding the charge as proved. Respondent was issued show cause notice on 26.05.2016 proposing to impose penalty of reduction of pay by one stage with cumulative effect. Respondent replied to the show cause notice on 11.07.2016. After considering the reply, Petitioner corporation imposed the penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect by order dated 12.07.2016.

5. Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.88 of 2016 before Industrial Court at Kolhapur challenging the penalty order. The complaint was resisted by the Petitioner-Corporation by filing written statement. Labour Court delivered order on preliminary issue on 10th January 2017 holding that the conduct of enquiry was perverse and without any legal and cogent evidence. The Petitioner corporation was granted liberty to justify its action by leading fresh evidence. Accordingly, Petitioner corporation led evidence. Industrial Court, after considering the evidence so adduced by the Petitioner-Corporation, delivered Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2017 allowing the complaint partly. It was held that the Petitioner engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule 4 of MRTU and PULP Act by issuing punishment order dated 12.07.2016. Industrial Court has set aside the punishment order dated 12.07.2016. Aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, Petitioner corporation has filed present petition challenging both the orders dated 10.01.2017 on preliminary issue as well as order dated 13.07.2017.

6. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Corporation would submit that sufficient evidence was produced both in the enquiry as well as before the Industrial Court in support of proof of charge. That the test of proving the charge in departmental inquiry is preponderance of probability. That the concerned Excise O