Dismissed

Mr Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu v. the Special Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2014WP/10240/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenging the cancellation of three yearly increments due to negligence allowing adulterated diesel to be supplied to buses. The High Court held the punishment reasonable and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without any order passed in favour of the petitioner.

What the court decided

Mr Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu Vs the Special… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3 10240.13wp.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10240 OF 2013

¶4

Mr.Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Special Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others. ... Respondents.

¶5

Dr.Ramdas P. Sabban for the petitioner.

¶6

C.M.Lokesh i/b. G.S.Hegde for respondent No.7..

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 15^th September 2014.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The petitioner at the relevant time was discharging duty as Depot Incharge of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). An enquiry was initiated against the the petitioner when it was noticed that on 30th December 2006 a diesel tanker was unloaded in the fuel tank of the S.T.Depot. After filling in diesel in the buses it was noticed that diesel was adulterated as some percentage of diesel was mixed with water. The ST buses suffered damages due to which inconvenience was caused to the passenger and financial loss to the Corporation.

¶11

2/3 10240.13wp.sxw

¶12

The Enquiry Officer recorded statements, considered the record and thereafter submitted his report. A criminal complaint was also lodged. The petitioner being Depot Manager was held guilty along with other employees. The disciplinary authority of the Corporation by an order dated 21^st May 2010 decided to stop three yearly increments of the petitioner. The higher body of the Corporation confirmed the said punishment by order dated 12^th November 2012.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of taking due care the allegations were made that due to negligence of the petitioner, adulterated diesel was deposited in the tank by the diesel supplier. The petitioner was on leave on the relevant date but he had taken abundant precaution and had instructed other staff members to keep watch.

¶14

We have perused the record placed before us including the statements recorded during enquiry proceeding. The Administration of MSRTC had issued strict instructions that the Depot Manager shall remain personally present when the diesel tanker is emptied in the depot premises. The record reflects that the petitioner failed to take appropriate steps due to which the MSRTC suffered losses. The charges levelled against the petitioner are established. It is a serious matter where after examination it was found that water was mixed in the diesel and the same was supplied to S.T.buses which carry public at large. The report shows that some of the buses had to be abandoned on the road as

¶15

3/3 10240.13wp.sxw

¶16

the diesel got exhausted. Due to such incidents public image of MSRTC suffered to a large extent.

¶17

In the facts, we find that proper and reasonable punishment has been imposed. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit. Petition is dismissed.

¶18

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶19

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Mr Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu v. the Special Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Mr Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu v. the Special Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Daji Dhundare Vs Shri.Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Dinkar Ganpat Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Finance Dept and Ors.

Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway and Ors. Vs Shri. Shylesha Mc.

Satish Kundanlal Agrawal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Ors.

Mr Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu Vs the Special Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Mr. a. P. Gurgule Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept