Bombay High Court Upholds MSRTC's Right To Dismiss Conductor For Repeated Misconduct; Domestic Inquiries Do Not Require The Same Standard Of Proof As Judicial Proceedings

A Single Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled in favour of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). It set aside the Industrial Court's order and reinstated MSRTC's right to dismiss a conductor, Raghu Deu Mongal, for serious misconduct. The court held that the domestic inquiry was fairly conducted and the punishment was appropriate. Background Raghu Deu Mongal, employed as a conductor by MSRTC, was involved in an incident on May 7, 2000, where a passenger was found without a ticket during a routine inspection. The passenger claimed to have paid Rs. 3 to Mongal but was not issued a ticket. Additionally, a shortfall of Rs. 65.25 was found in Mongal's cash bag. MSRTC initiated a disciplinary inquiry, and after finding Mongal guilty of misconduct, issued a show-cause notice on January 29, 2001, proposing dismissal from service. Mongal challenged this notice before the Labour Court, which dismissed his complaint on December 4, 2002. However, Mongal succeeded in a revision before the Industrial Court, which reversed the Labour Court's decision and restrained MSRTC from dismissing him. MSRTC, dissatisfied with this outcome, filed the present writ petition. Arguments of the Petitioner MSRTC, represented by Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali, contended that the decision to dismiss Mongal was based on clear and sufficient evidence gathered during the departmental inquiry. The primary argument centered on the checker's testimony, which established that a passenger was traveling without a ticket, and Mongal's cash bag had a shortfall. While the evidence of the Rs. 3 fare paid to Mongal was hearsay, MSRTC argued that hearsay evidence is admissible in domestic inquiries, provided it is credible and logically relevant. The petitioner further emphasized that Mongal had a history of similar misconduct, having been involved in 11 prior instances of cash discrepancies and ticketless travel. MSRTC asserted that the penalty of dismissal was proportionate, given the repeated nature of the offenses. The petitioner also argued that the Industrial Court erred in its decision by demanding corroborative evidence and placing undue weight on the absence of testimony from the passenger. Arguments of the Respondent Mr. Vaibhav Jagdale, appearing for Mongal, argued that the Industrial Court had rightly found fault with the domestic inquiry. He emphasized that the inquiry had relied on hearsay evidence, as the passenger in question was not called to testify, thus undermining the fairness of the proceedings. Mongal argued that without direct testimony from the passenger, the case against him was weakened, as the checker's statement regarding the passenger's payment of Rs. 3 to Mongal was not corroborated. Additionally, Mongal contended that the shortfall of Rs. 65.25 in his cash bag was the result of an innocent dealing mistake, and that the amount had been immediately rectified. He argued that this minor discrepancy, when seen in isolation, did not justify the extreme penalty of dismissal. Mongal also maintained that the Industrial Court had correctly considered the procedural shortcomings of the inquiry and acted within its rights by restraining MSRTC from proceeding with the dismissal. Judgment The court reaffirmed State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977 (2) SCC 492), which held that strict rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings do not govern domestic inquiries. In such proceedings, hearsay evidence is admissible as long as it is logically probative and has a reasonable nexus to the issue. The judge noted that while the testimony of the checker regarding the Rs. 3 fare paid by the passenger was hearsay, it was not inadmissible, especially since the checker had recorded the passenger's statement, which formed part of the inquiry record. The court concluded that the Industrial Court had erred by dismissing this evidence solely because the passenger did not testify in person. Next, the court scrutinized Mongal's defense that the Rs. 65.25 shortfall in his cash bag was a minor dealing mistake. While acknowledging that the shortfall might not have justified dismissal in isolation, Justice Marne emphasized that Mongal had engaged in similar offenses 11 times prior, which revealed a pattern of behavior that merited serious disciplinary action. In light of this repeated misconduct, the court held that MSRTC's decision to impose dismissal was proportionate and not “shockingly disproportionate” as argued by Mongal. The Industrial Court's failure to consider the cumulative effect of these past offenses was a critical flaw in its reasoning. Additionally, Justice Marne addressed Mongal's claim that the Industrial Court had correctly demanded corroborative evidence from the passenger. The court rejected this argument, holding that domestic inquiries do not require the same standard of proof as...

Bombay High Court Upholds MSRTC's Right To Dismiss Conductor For Repeated Misconduct; Domestic Inquiries Do Not Require The Same Standard Of Proof As Judicial Proceedings

Pranav Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Pranav Kumar

Bombay High Court Upholds MSRTC's Right To Dismiss Conductor For Repeated Misconduct; Domestic Inquiries Do Not Require The Same Standard Of Proof As Judicial Proceedings

Pranav Kumar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Pranav Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers