Sonawane brought up an industrial dispute, and the labour court was referred to it. The labour court issued an award dismissing Sonawane's referral in February 2005, which prompted Sonawane to file the case with the High Court.
Digital Desk: The Bombay High Court stated on
Tuesday during a service case hearing that the nation's attitude that
government employees cannot be held accountable for their wrongdoings must
disappear as soon as feasible. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane
A former bus conductor for the Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) appealed a single judge's decision
upholding a labour court ruling that validated the termination of his
employment.
Justices
GS Patel and Gauri Godse's division bench observed that the single judge had
correctly rejected to alter the labour court's decision.
"...AP Shah J declined to become involved, and
in our opinion, he did so quite wisely. There is such a thing as being too
forgiving. The belief that when one works for the government no action can ever
be taken regardless of how repeatedly one is found to be doing wrong is an
attitude that needs to stop as soon as possible in this country, "It
commented.
Jaising Sonawane, the appellant,
worked as a bus conductor for MSRTC. He was on duty in December 1995 when an
inspection squad checked the bus at Lonavala on the Pune to Borivali route. It
was discovered that Sonawane had improperly punched certain tickets and was in
possession of an excess of $24.50..
Additionally, was discovered that the
incorrectly punched tickets were not noted in the way bill, which is how a
chargesheet was filed. His services were terminated after a probe.
Sonawane brought up an industrial dispute,
and the labour court was referred to it. The labour court issued an award
dismissing Sonawane's referral in February 2005, which prompted Sonawane to
file the case with the High Court.
After
observing that this was not Sonawane's first incidence of wrongdoing, the sole
judge declined to overturn the labour court's decision.
At that time, the petitioner's attorney stood
before the Division Bench and made just one submission, which was about how the
punishment was unfair. It was stated that a more lenient viewpoint should have been
adopted and that a lighter sentence would further justice.
In
light of this, the Bench declared that while proportionality was important in
the decision-making process, it did not follow that every violation could be
viewed leniently.
"There can be no question about the generality
of the statement that proportionality is important in all decision-making
processes. However, this does not imply that every transgression must be
excused with a simple slap on the wrist, as it once was. When evaluating the
theory of proportionality, one considers the complete context, as well as the
pattern or history of behaviour, particularly past behaviour, in the particular
situation "it declared.
In response to the petitioner's
claim that he had not engaged in any actual defalcation or misappropriation,
the court emphasised that the labour court had found Sonawane to have acted
with malice aforethought.
"The Labour Court's decision is very clear.
The Labour Court determined in paragraph 12 that Sonawane had a false purpose
to utilise these six tickets for a return trip. In other words, this indicates
that the voyage in one way had some sort of illegal purpose. Mr. Govilkar's
justification that there was no actual defalcation or misappropriation is not
particularly persuasive. It means that even if someone is caught while
attempting to perform a wrong doing, no action can be taken until they have
really committed stealing "It read.
It dismissed the appeal because
it saw no justification for interfering with the single-decision. judge's
Advocates
RV Govilkar, Mihir Govilkar and S Khan appeared for the appellant.
Advocates GS Hegde and PM Bhansali appeared
for MSRTC.
Continue Reading
