This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a bus conductor for a cash shortage found during a duty inspection. The court rejected the petitioner's claim that findings were based on conjectures, upholding the dismissal based on established responsibility in public transport roles.
Petition summarily dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No. 1426 of 2008
Madhukar Mangesh Pai ..Petitioner
vs.
1. The BEST Undertaking & Ors. ..Respondents
Ms.Ritu Joshi i/b Mr.M.M.Thorat for petitioner.
Mr.P.M.Palshikar with Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b M/s M.V.Kini
and Co. for respondents.
CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARIJ.
23rd June 2008
P.C.
1. This is one more case of a Bus-conductor in public
transport service not accounting for the Tickets and
movies received. It is not in dispute that the petitioner
was employed with the respondent as a bus conductor. He
was on duty on 15th June, 2000. The bus was checked by
the inspector and checking disclosed that there was a
shortage of Rs.5295/- in the cash with the petitioner.
Hence, the charge sheet was issued under the relevant
Standing Order. Enquiry was conducted. Upon assessment
and appreciation of the material, Enquiry Officer found
the petitioner guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary
Authority considered the enquiry report and the past
conduct of the petitioner and imposed the
penalty/punishment of dismissal.
2. That was subject matter of challenge in proceedings
before the Courts below. There are concurrent findings
with regard to guilt of the petitioner, fairness of the
enquiry and proportionality of the punishment. Ms.Joshi
would urge that the findings are vitiated by errors
apparent in as much as the entire action is based upon
conjectures and surmises. Enquiry itself was not fair and
finding in that behalf is rendered without adverting to
the necessary material.
3. It is not possible to accept any of these contentions
because the petitioner has not disputed that he was on
duty, that the bus was checked by the Inspector and the
tickets which were unsold and the cash was also inspected,
which revealed shortage of Rs.5295.10. This was the
quantum which was found short after sale of tickets. The
petitioner could not satisfactorily explain the shortage.
In the enquiry full opportunity was given to the
petitioner. Even the witnesses were examined. The
shortage is not disputed by the petitioner but his case
was that he kept the blocks of tickets of Rs.8, Rs.9 and
Rs.11/- in his locker and, therefore, there was shortage.
4. In my view, repeatedly it has been held that the
conductor in public transport service holds a position of
trust. He has to account for the tickets that are sold
and the amount received, honestly and diligently. When
such acts are rapidly increasing and the Courts have been
warned not to interfere with the punishments in such cases
or else it is difficult to maintain discipline, in my
view, the concurrent findings of fact do not suffer from
any infirmity warranting interference in writ
jurisdiction. Petition is summarily dismissed. No costs.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of a bus conductor for shortage of collected funds warrants interference in writ jurisdiction despite concurrent findings of guilt.
Whether the punishment of dismissal was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.
Whether the enquiry proceeded fairly and whether the petitioner had an opportunity to explain the shortage.
Madhukar Mangesh Pai
The BEST Undertaking
S.C. Dharmadikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court