The court upheld the dismissal of an employee based on sufficient evidence in a domestic enquiry, affirming that procedural fairness does not require the same strict standards as formal court proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

1) Petitioner, an ex-conductor of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dated 8 March 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Sangli dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.51/1998, in which he had challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 10 March 1998. The order of the Labour Court has been confirmed by the Industrial Court, Sangli by dismissing Petitioner’s Revision Application (ULP) No.49/2004 vide judgment and order dated 11 August 2006, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

2) Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) in the year 1989 on daily wages. He was confirmed in service in the year 1995. On 14 July 1996, he was deputed to work as Conductor in the bus No. 1059 of MSRTC on Sangli to Jat route. The bus was checked at Kavathe Mahankal bus station by the checking squad consisting of three checking officers. Based on the report submitted by the checking squad, chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner on 5 August 1996 alleging two charges viz. (i) that one passenger was detected without ticket from whom the Petitioner had already collected the fare and (ii) Petitioner was detected with excess of Rs.30.25/-. Based on the said charges, enquiry was conducted in which the concerned passenger apparently did not remain present. MSRTC however examined one of the members of the checking squad in the enquiry. The witness was cross-examined by the Petitioner based on the evidence recorded in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted report submitting that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved and after considering his past misconduct, he proposed imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, Petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 21 February 1998 proposing to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 26 February 1998. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter proceeded to pass order dated 10 March 1998 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the Petitioner.

3) Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 51/1998 before the Labour Court, Sangli challenging its dismissal order. In that complaint, the Labour Court passed interim order dated 14 September 1998 directing MSRTC to reinstate him during pendency of the complaint. MSRTC preferred Revision Application (ULP) No. 249/1998 before the Industrial Court, Solapur challenging the interim order dated 14 September 1998. The Revision Application was however dismissed on 21 December 1998. MSRTC thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 1806/1999 in this Court challenging the orders of the Labour and Industrial Courts. This Court recorded consent of both the parties by order dated 6 July 2000 and set aside the interim order of the Labour Court as confirmed by the Industrial Court and directed the Labour Court to decide the Complaint (ULP) No. 51/1998 expeditiously within a period of 6 months.

4) The Labour Court thereafter passed order dated 22 November 2000 answering the preliminary issue relating to fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer against the Petitioner by holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and that there was no perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner challenged order dated 22 November 2000 on preliminary issue before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur by filing Revision Application (ULP) No. 211/2000, which came to be dismissed by order dated 16 January 2001. Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 829/2001, which came to be dismissed by order dated 14 February 2001. This Court however observed that all contentions raised by the Petitioner in the petition about fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings were left open to be decided if Petitioner still felt aggrieved by the final order of the Labour and In