THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD CORPORATION DHULEversusSHAMKANT WAMANRAO CHOUDHARY

2026:BHC-AUG:41946


                     IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         901 WRIT PETITION NO. 6961 OF 2017

             The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Corporation Dhule
                                           VERSUS
                              Shamkant Wamanrao Choudhary
                                              ...
                         Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bagul D. S.
                          AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. S. G. Joshi
                        Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S. U. Chduahri
                                              ...

                                         WITH
                            CONT. PETITION NO. 126 OF 2024
                                   IN WP/6961/2017
                                          ...

                                 CORAM    : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                 Dated    : September 02, 2026

           ORAL JUDGMENT :

           1.    Heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the

           respective parties.



           2.    The present respondent was working as a conductor with the

           petitioner/MSRTC. On 4th July 2006, a conductor, namely D. K.

           Sonwane, was discharging his duties as a conductor on a bus carrying

           passengers from Dhule to Jalgaon. A surprise check of the bus was

           conducted when the bus was near Erandol. During the course of

           checking tickets, it was noticed that the said conductor, Mr. Sonawane,

           possessed forged tickets of denominations of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 40/-.

           During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the tickets

           were being printed with the help of one Mr. Ramesh Wadile, who was

                                           Page 1 of 14
                                                                  901 WP 6961-2017



running a printing press. The said conductor, Sonawane, revealed

that the present respondent and one other conductor had also

manipulated tickets in a similar manner. In view of the allegations

levelled, a criminal offence came to be registered against the said

conductor, Mr. Sonawane, the present respondent, and Mr. Ramesh

Wadile. Based on the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution, Regular

Criminal Case No. 244 of 2008 came to be registered against the

respondent and the other two accused persons. All three accused

came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 24th January 2013 passed

by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule.



3.     It will be pertinent to state that apart from the criminal

prosecution, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the

present respondent. The present respondent filed his reply to the

charge-sheet denying the charges. He also moved an application

seeking a stay of the departmental proceedings on the ground that

criminal prosecution pertaining to the same allegations was pending

before a competent court of law. It was stated that the evidence,

both   documentary    and   oral,   in    the   criminal   case     and      the

departmental proceedings was the same, and therefore it would be

unjust to proceed with the departmental inquiry pending the criminal

trial, since cross-examination of the petitioner’s witnesses would

disclose the defence, causing prejudice in defending the criminal

case. The petitioner/MSRTC, however, continued with the inquiry

                               Page 2 of 14
                                                          901 WP 6961-2017



after rejecting the application for stay of departmental proceedings.

The respondent employee did not participate in the inquiry. The

inquiry proceeded ex-parte, wherein the petitioner examined one

witness. Based on the inquiry report, the punishment of termination

of services was imposed upon the respondent. The respondent

challenged the order of termination by filing a complaint, being

Complaint (ULP) No. 16 of 2009, under the provisions of the

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The said complaint

came to be dismissed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Dhule,

vide judgment dated 18th April 2012. Aggrieved by the dismissal of

his complaint, the respondent preferred a revision under the said Act,

registered as Revision Application (ULP) No. 13 of 2013. The learned

Industrial Court initially dismissed the revision application vide

judgment dated 21st July 2014. As stated above, the respondent was

acquitted in the criminal case. The respondent preferred a writ

petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 6708 of 2016,

which came to be partly allowed by an order dated 7th July 2016.

This Court quashed and set aside the judgment dated 21st July 2014

passed by the learned Industrial Court and directed it to decide the

revision afresh in light of the acquittal of the respondent in the

criminal case. Accordingly, the revision was taken up for hearing

again. The learned Industrial Court allowed the revision application

vide judgment dated 7th November 2016, by virtue of which the

                               Page 3 of 14
                                                                      901 WP 6961-2017



judgment delivered by the learned Labour Court was quashed and

set aside, the order of termination of services was set aside, and

directions were issued to reinstate the respondent in service till the

date of his superannuation and to pay arrears of salary from the date

of termination until superannuation. Such directions were required to

be issued since the respondent had superannuated while the revision

was pending before the Industrial Court.



4.      Mr.   Bagul,   learned      advocate        for   the   petitioner/MSRTC,

vehemently argues that the learned Labour Court had considered the

entire controversy in its right earnest. He contends that acquittal in a

criminal case cannot by itself be a reason for exonerating a

delinquent employee in disciplinary proceedings. He contends that

the respondent employee did not participate in the inquiry despite

repeated opportunities. He further argues that the learned Industrial

Court committed a manifest error of law and jurisdiction in reversing

a well-reasoned judgment delivered by the Labour Court, relying

simpliciter on the acquittal in the criminal case without adverting to

the settled legal principle that the yardsticks as regards standard of

proof    in   a   criminal   case   and       departmental      proceedings      are

completely different.



5.      Per contra, Mr. S. U. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the

respondent employee, justifies the revisional order passed by the

                                     Page 4 of 14
                                                           901 WP 6961-2017



Industrial Court. He contends that the evidence and charges in the

criminal case and departmental inquiry were identical, and under

such circumstances, an acquittal by a judicial pronouncement must

result in setting aside the termination order. He places strong

reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M.

Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC

1416). He further contends that one Prakash Chetram Shinde who

was involved in a similar incident was acquitted in Criminal Case.

He states that termination of Mr. Shinde set aside by the learned

Labour Court and the said order was maintained by the learned

Industrial Court, and further that Writ Petition filed by MSRTC against

the said order was withdrawn.



6.      In reply, Mr. Bagul points out that in the case of Prakash

Shinde, the Labour Court had allowed the complaint before the

criminal case was decided because the departmental inquiry itself

was found to be vitiated, whereas in the present case, the

respondent did not participate in the inquiry.



7.      Mr. Bagul draws attention to the judgment dated 8th February

2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10763 of 2016,

whereby this Court upheld the termination of the co-accused

conductor, Devidas Sonawane, who was acquitted in the criminal

case.

                                Page 5 of 14
                                                                  901 WP 6961-2017




8.    The first contention raised by the learned Advocate for the

petitioner   is   that   the   learned      Industrial   Court   has    clearly

misinterpreted the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). Mr. D. S. Bagul submits that

although the Judgment states that, in a case where the criminal

prosecution and departmental inquiry are based on the same facts

and same evidence, the proceedings in the departmental inquiry

cannot be stayed as a matter of course. He further contends that

acquittal of the delinquent employee in the criminal case will not

ipso facto result in setting aside the penal action in the departmental

inquiry.



9.    As regards stay of departmental proceedings pending the

criminal case, perusal of the Judgment in the case of Capt. M. Paul

Anthony (supra) will reveal that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held that there is no bar in proceeding with disciplinary inquiry and

criminal prosecution simultaneously. It is, however, held that it will

be desirable to stay departmental proceedings till conclusion of the

criminal case in cases where both, departmental proceedings and

criminal case, are based on an identical set of facts and the same

evidence. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has qualified that

departmental action can be stayed only if the charges are of grave

nature and it involves adjudication of complicated questions of law

                                  Page 6 of 14
                                                              901 WP 6961-2017



and fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also cautioned that if the

criminal proceedings do not culminate within a reasonable period,

departmental action cannot be deferred till the culmination of the

criminal case. It is categorically held that it is desirable that if the

employee is not guilty, he is exonerated at the earliest and if he is

guilty, he is got rid of at the earliest.



10.   Applying the ratio of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) to the

facts of the present case, it must be stated that the facts of the

present case do not present any adjudication of complicated issues.

The tickets were found at the residential house of the respondent

employee, based on which departmental action is taken against him.

It was a simple case of recovery of offending material at the

residential house of the respondent. The general principle that both

the proceedings can continue simultaneously will, therefore, be

applicable to the facts of the present case. The contention that

departmental proceedings ought to have been stayed till final

disposal of the criminal case is liable to be rejected.



11.   The general principle that the standard of proof required in a

disciplinary proceeding and a criminal case are altogether different

cannot be disputed. It is a well-settled legal principle that acquittal in

a criminal case cannot ipso facto result in setting aside disciplinary

action taken by the employer against an erring employee. However,

                                   Page 7 of 14
                                                           901 WP 6961-2017



as rightly pointed out by Mr. Chaudhari, in cases where the evidence

in disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case is identical, due

regard must be given to the fact of acquittal of the employee in the

criminal case. However, there has to be a fair assessment of the

evidence that has come on record in the criminal case, the reasons

recorded by the learned Court while acquitting the delinquent and

the evidence that has come on record in the departmental

proceedings.



12.   In the present case, forged tickets were recovered from the

residential house of the respondent during a search conducted

following disclosures made by Devidas Sonawane, who was caught

with forged tickets during a raid. The raid was conducted at the

residential house of the present respondent. During the said raid,

forged tickets were found at the residential house of the present

respondent. During the course of prosecution, witnesses Nos. 2 and

3 were examined to prove the fact of seizure of forged tickets.



13.   A perusal of the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate indicates that the acquittal was granted because

independent witnesses were not examined to prove the fact of

forged tickets being found at the residence of the respondent. The

evidence of the witnesses is not completely discarded. However,

having regard to the fact that, in a criminal case, the charge has to

                               Page 8 of 14
                                                             901 WP 6961-2017



be proved to the hilt, the learned Magistrate deemed it appropriate

to hold that the evidence of independent witnesses should have

been recorded by the prosecution to bring home the charge.             The

learned Industrial Court failed to notice this vital aspect while setting

aside the Judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court

and consequently quashing and setting aside the punishment of

termination of services imposed upon the respondent.



14.   It must also be stated that the departmental action is not

based on the criminal case alone. An independent inquiry is

conducted by the petitioner in which the procedure contemplated

was scrupulously followed. The respondent chose not to participate

despite several opportunities being granted to him. The learned

Labour Court has properly dealt with the controversy while

dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent employee.



15.   In view of the aforesaid, it will not be possible to take a

different view of the matter in the case of the present respondent.

The relevant observations in the said Judgment are reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference:

            “15.   On interrogation, the respondent stated that two more
            Conductors, namely, Shri Chaudhari and Shri Deshmukh are
            involved. Based on this information, the Dhule Police sent a
            wireless message and carried out a raid on the house of Shri
            Chaudhari. His house was searched in his presence and similar


                                Page 9 of 14
                                                                  901 WP 6961-2017



           such tickets were found. The printer on which the conversion of
           such tickets was being done was also found. A raid on the house
           of the respondent also resulted in discovering several such
           tickets, which were to be used. It was on the basis of this
           evidence that the petitioner conducted an enquiry.
           16.    There is no dispute that the respondent has been
           acquitted in the criminal trial. It is equally undisputed that in
           these circumstances, the petitioner has lost faith, trust and
           confidence in the respondent. On considering the material
           available and the fact that the search of the house of the
           respondent revealed fake tickets, is in itself sufficient to conclude
           the involvement of the respondent since no bus conductor is
           permitted to carry unused tickets and store them in his
           residence.
           20.    It also cannot be ignored that the respondent was
           prosecuted    for offenses punishable under Sections 420, 468,
           471 read with 34 of the IPC. The enquiry was conducted on the
           ground that he has prepared false tickets, used fake tickets and
           as such, had collected fare from the passengers who were not
           allotted authentic tickets. The aspect, therefore, that the
           passengers have virtually travelled ticket-less after paying the
           fare to the bus conductor could be considered even as a stand
           alone charge. For all these reasons, the enquiry officer concluded
           that the respondent was guilty of the charges levelled upon him.”



16.   Apart from the merits of the matter, the learned Advocate for

the respondent also submits that, having regard to the fact that the

respondent has superannuated from service long back, a lenient

view should be taken and lesser punishment should be imposed. The

said prayer also cannot be considered in view of the settled legal

principle that in cases of misappropriation of funds leniency can

never be shown to a delinquent employee. It will also be appropriate

                                 Page 10 of 14
                                                                    901 WP 6961-2017



to state that a similar request was made by the other conductor in

Writ Petition No. 10763 of 2016, which was turned down by this

Court    vide   aforesaid    Judgment         dated   08/02/2017.      Relevant

observations while rejecting the request, which are incorporated in

paragraph 18 of the Judgment, are reproduced hereinbelow for ready

reference:

             “18.   The Honourable Apex Court in Janatha Bazar (South
             Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs.
             The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarana Sangha Etc. [(2000) 7 SCC
             517], and the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter
             of P.R.Shele Vs. Union of India and others [2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 33],
             has concluded that mis-conducts involving the element of mis-
             appropriation have to be dealt with sternly and with an iron hand.
             In my view, considering the boldness with which employees like
             the respondent commit acts of mis-appropriation, no sympathy
             can be shown towards such employees, lest it would indicate that
             such employees can get away with such acts. Fear is that like
             minded employees would become emboldened for committing
             mis-appropriation and embezzlement.”



17.     The learned Advocate for the respondent also contends that

one Prakash Shinde, who was also found to be involved in the similar

incident, was acquitted and was reinstated in service pursuant to

orders passed by the learned Industrial Court in his favour. It is

contended that the petition preferred by MSRTC against the said

order passed by the learned Labour Court and Industrial Court was

withdrawn. The learned Advocate contends that a similar yardstick

needs to be adopted in the case of the present respondent as well.


                                  Page 11 of 14
                                                          901 WP 6961-2017




18.   As regards the case of Prakash Shinde, as rightly pointed out

by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the said employee had

participated in the inquiry. His complaint was allowed by the Labour

Court on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted properly.

Although he was also acquitted in the criminal case, he was tried in a

different case. Apart from this, it will also have to be borne in mind

that the case of another employee, who was co-accused with the

present respondent in a criminal case, is dismissed by this Court in

the aforesaid petition by a reasoned Judgment. This Court is bound

by the said Judgment delivered in an identical set of facts arising

with respect to the same employer and two employees working on

the same post against whom similar allegations are made. The fact

that the present respondent did not participate in the disciplinary

inquiry also cannot be ignored.



19.   Another contention raised by the learned Advocate for the

respondent is that the disciplinary authority himself has acted as the

Inquiry Officer and, as such, the inquiry must be held to be vitiated

on this very ground, since he prosecuted himself and acted as a

Judge. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of Rule 18 of

the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the petitioner/ MSRTC. Relying

upon the said provision, this Court has rejected the contention that

the disciplinary authority cannot act as an Inquiry Officer in the

                                  Page 12 of 14
                                                                    901 WP 6961-2017



following cases :

      (a)   Writ Petition No. 12302 of 2021 (Shri Sandip
      Vasant    Bhole     vs.   Divisional         Traffic    Superintendent
      (Aparadh),      Maharashtra                State    Road      Transport
      Corporation, Jalgaon, decided on 29/11/2022),
      (b)   Writ Petition No. 11502 of 2022 (Namdeo Tukaram
      Mokashe       Vs.   Maharashtra             State      Road   Transport
      Corporation, decided on 22/11/2022), And
      (c)   Writ Petition No. 960 of 2022 (Sarjerao Baburao
      Pawar vs. Divisional Traffic Superintendent (Apradh),
      Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and
      Another, decided on 15/07/2024).



20.   In the light of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the learned Industrial Court erred in allowing

the revision application merely on the basis of the acquittal of the

respondent in the criminal case initiated against him. The learned

Industrial Court failed to advert to the reasons recorded by the

learned Labour Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction over the

Judgment and order of learned Labour Court.



21.   The Writ Petition, therefore deserves to be allowed and is

accordingly allowed by quashing and setting aside the Judgment and

order dated 07th November 2016 passed by the learned Incharge

Member, Industrial Court, Dhule, in Revision Application ULP No. 13

of 2013 and by confirming the Judgment and order dated 18/04/2005


                                 Page 13 of 14
                                                              901 WP 6961-2017



passed by the learned Labour Court, Dhule, in Complaint ULP No. 16

of 2009.



22.        Contempt Petition No.126 of 2024 is filed alleging breach of

the undertaking dated 23rd September 2021 furnished by the

respondent to this Court during the pendency of Writ Petition No.

6961 of 2017, wherein the respondent had undertaken not to press

for implementation of the Industrial Court’s order.      Since the main

Writ Petition No. 6961 of 2017 challenging the said judgment of the

Industrial Court has been allowed today by setting aside the

Industrial Court's order, nothing survives for consideration in the

contempt petition. Contempt Petition No. 126 of 2024 stands

disposed of accordingly.




                                                  ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                  Page 14 of 14