Shri. Sandip Vasant Bhole vs Divisional controller MSRTC, High Court Judgment

 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.12302 OF 2021

Shri. Sandip Vasant Bhole,
Aged – 47, Occ – Service,
R/o-52, Gandhi Nagar,
Jilha Peth, Jalgao Dist. Jalgaon ..Petitioner

Versus

1. Divisional Traffic Superintendent (Aparadh)
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Jalgaon Division Jalgaon
Above new bus stand, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

2. Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Jalgaon Division Jalgaon
Above new bus stand, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ..Respondents

Mr. Abasaheb Shinde h/f Mr. V. A. Pawar, Advocate for the

Petitioner

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 29th NOVEMBER, 2022.

I have already dealt with the similar case in Namdeo Tukaram Mokashe vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Writ Petition No.11502 Of 2022 decided on 22-11-2022, in which it is held as under:

7. Mr Shahane has placed on record copy of the Discipline and Appeal Rules formulated by the respondent-Corporation. Rule 18 provides that the appointing authority or authority above him is competent to initiate disciplinary enquiry, to conduct enquiry and to impose punishment. Thus, the Rules specifically permit the disciplinary authority to conduct enquiry against an employee. Therefore, no error is committed by the disciplinary authority by acting as an Enquiry Officer in the present case. Even otherwise, there is settled law that the disciplinary authority may delegate the power to hold disciplinary enquiry to an Enquiry Officer. However, this does not mean that the disciplinary authority cannot himself act as an Enquiry Officer. So far as the disciplinary authority acting in the capacity of Presenting Officer is concerned, no serious infirmity can be said to have been committed. No grievance was raised by petitioner during the course of enquiry in that regard. No prejudice is caused to him by that action.

8. Coming to the issue of competency of disciplinary authority, Mr Shahane has sought to raise this issue for the first time before this Court after I called upon him to produce copy of the Discipline and Appeal Rulesfor examining whether the disciplinary authority could act as an Enquiry Officer After noticing provisions of Rule 18 Mr Shahane sought to press into service the submissions that in the respondent-Corporation, the Divisional Controller is an appointing authority whereas the proceedings have been initiated by the Divisional Traffic Officer. He would therefore contend that the Divisional Traffic Officer was not competent to conduct the disciplinary enquiry against petitioner.

9. I have perused the statement of the claim filed by petitioner before the Labour Court and find that no contention with regard to the competency of disciplinary authority was raised therein. If petitioner was to make out the case of incompetency of the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, he ought to have made specific averments in the statement of claim and demonstrate before the Labour Court as to how the Divisional Controller had appointed him and not the Divisional Traffic Officer. Neither any pleading was raised much less in evidence led. Petitioner therefore, cannot be permitted to raise the issue of competency of disciplinary authority directly before this Court in the present case. The contention is therefore rejected.

9. What remains now is to deal with the judgment cited by Mr. Shinde in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Wardha Vs. Rajendra Mohanlal Chhangani (supra). The decision is rendered in the facts of that case. Furthermore, Rule 18 specifically permits the Disciplinary Authority to himself conduct disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, reliance of Mr. Shinde on the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Wardha Vs. Rajendra Mohanlal Chhangani (supra) would be of no avail.

  Download