Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), challenged the judgment and order dated 13.7.2017 passed by the Industrial Court No.1, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.88 of 2016. The respondent, Bhupal Madhukar Pol, was employed as a driver with MSRTC. On 12.3.2015, while driving a bus on the Panji-Pune route, a surprise check was conducted by the Excise Department at 1:45 A.M. A box containing 12 bottles of liquor valued at Rs.6,400/- was found behind the driver's seat. The respondent was taken into custody and a panchnama was prepared. The Excise Department lodged a prosecution against the respondent under Section 65(E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The respondent was acquitted in the criminal case on 29.12.2015. Meanwhile, the respondent was suspended from service on 13.3.2015. After a preliminary enquiry, a chargesheet was issued on 9.5.2015 alleging recovery of the liquor bottles. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect. The respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court challenging the penalty. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint, setting aside the penalty and directing reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The MSRTC filed the present writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order. The main legal issues were whether the Industrial Court was justified in interfering with the penalty and whether the acquittal in the criminal case automatically entitled the respondent to full back wages and setting aside of the penalty. The petitioner argued that the acquittal does not bar disciplinary proceedings and that the penalty was proportionate. The respondent argued that the penalty was disproportionate and that the acquittal should be considered. The court held that while acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically exonerate an employee in departmental proceedings, the penalty must be proportionate to the misconduct. The court found that the Industrial Court had correctly considered the acquittal and the evidence, and that the penalty of reduction with cumulative effect was disproportionate. The court upheld the Industrial Court's order, including the denial of back wages, as the respondent was found in possession of liquor bottles, which is a serious misconduct for a driver. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Proportionality of Punishment - Possession of Liquor by Driver - The respondent, a driver with MSRTC, was found with 12 liquor bottles behind his seat during a surprise check by the Excise Department. He was acquitted in criminal case under Section 65(E) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. In departmental proceedings, penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect was imposed. Industrial Court partly allowed complaint, setting aside the penalty and directing reinstatement with continuity but without back wages. Held that acquittal in criminal case does not automatically exonerate employee in departmental proceedings, but the penalty must be proportionate to the misconduct. The Industrial Court's order was upheld, as the penalty of reduction with cumulative effect was disproportionate. (Paras 1-16) B) Service Law - Acquittal in Criminal Case - Effect on Departmental Proceedings - Standard of Proof - The respondent was acquitted in criminal case under Section 65(E) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner argued that acquittal does not bar disciplinary proceedings. Held that while acquittal is not binding on disciplinary authority, the fact of acquittal and the evidence in criminal case can be considered. In this case, the Industrial Court considered the acquittal and found that the penalty was disproportionate. (Paras 5-10) C) Service Law - Back Wages - Denial of Back Wages - The Industrial Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. Held that denial of back wages was justified as the respondent was found in possession of liquor bottles, which is a serious misconduct for a driver. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in interfering with the penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect imposed on the respondent-driver for possession of liquor bottles in the bus, and whether the acquittal in criminal case automatically entitles the employee to full back wages and setting aside of the penalty.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The Industrial Court's order dated 13.7.2017 is upheld. The respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.
Law Points
- Proportionality of punishment
- Acquittal in criminal case not binding on disciplinary proceedings
- Standard of proof in departmental proceedings
- Section 65(E) Bombay Prohibition Act
- 1949
