A writ petition challenging the confirmation of a departmental penalty reducing the petitioner's pay by three stages for rash driving causing an accident. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the penalty.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
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.
wp3532-17.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3532 /2017
Sunil Madhavrao Pimpliskar, Age: 50 years, Occu: Service, R/o: Ekvira Colony, Varud Road, Tq.Shindkheda, District Dhule.
...PETITIONER
Versus
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Dhule Division, Dist.Dhule, Through the Divisional Controller. ...RESPONDENT
Mr. Jagdish K. Bansod, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh N. Jain h/f P.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 06TH JULY, 2017.
ORAL ORDER :-
wp3532-17.odt
2
3
wp3532-17.odt
Controller in administrative capacity, only for giving direction on the basis of the final order made in departmental enquiry. After that, the appeal was separately considered and it is decided against the petitioner.
wp3532-17.odt
4
need to take proper care as passengers are travelling in the bus, and due to such rash and negligent driving, there is a risk to the life of such passengers. Though fortunately nobody died in the accident, the petitioner and some passengers were injured and injuries were grievous in nature. In ordinary course such employee can be removed from service. It can be said that, already a lenient view is taken in favour of petitioner.
on some observations made by the Apex Court in, AIR (SCW) 6403 (Brij Bihari Singh Versus Bihar State Financial Corporation and others). In this case the Apex Court has discussed the circumstance showing that, the appellate authority had imposed penalty on the basis of report of enquiry and then the appeal was heard. There was other circumstance showing that, there was no opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses. The facts of the present matter are different. The penalty order was made by Traffic Officer of the Division and appeal was decided by Divisional Controller, the Appellate Authority. Further, there are aforesaid circumstances which lead to inference and they are on the basis of the record. Thus, the observations
wp3532-17.odt
5
made by the Apex Court are not helpful to the petitioner. It is not possible to interfere in the penalty order, and also in the decision given by Industrial Court. In the result, petition stands dismissed.
[ T. V. NALAWADE, J.]
vjg/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the penalty order reducing the petitioner's pay scale by three stages confirmed by the Industrial Court.
Whether the delay in deciding the appeal vitiates the penalty order.
Whether sufficient material existed for rash and negligent driving warranting tenure termination.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Brij Bihari Singh Versus Bihar State Financial Corporation and othersReferred¶29
AIR (SCW) 6403
Sunil Madhavrao Pimpliskar
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
T. V. Nalawade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
