Facts: The respondent was employed as a driver with the petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). On July 31, 2019, while the respondent was driving a bus from Amalner to Indore, an accident occurred. Following the incident, television news channels and newspapers reported allegations that the driver was in a drunken state at the time of the accident. Relying solely on these media reports and without conducting any domestic or departmental inquiry, the MSRTC invoked Clause 6(1) of its Discipline and Appeal Rules to summarily dismiss the respondent from service.
Procedural Posture: The respondent challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court, Jalgaon, via a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. Both the MSRTC and the respondent filed revision applications before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, which were subsequently dismissed. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the MSRTC approached the High Court through the present Writ Petition.
Issue: Whether the MSRTC was legally justified in dismissing the respondent from service without a departmental inquiry by relying on summary powers under Clause 6(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, based exclusively on media reports.
Holding: No. the High Court held that the summary dismissal was unjustified and violated the principles of natural justice, as the conditions required to bypass a regular inquiry under the Rules were not met.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Clause 6(1) of the MSRTC Discipline and Appeal Rules allows for the bypass of a formal inquiry only under specific circumstances, such as when the employee admits guilt or is convicted by a criminal court. In this case, the respondent never admitted the charges. Furthermore, the petitioner admitted that no independent inquiry was conducted to verify the truthfulness of the news items. The Court emphasized that media reports cannot substitute for a legal inquiry or evidence. The Court also expressed serious concern regarding the MSRTC's failure to reinstate the driver despite the Labour Court's 2021 order, noting that a decree on paper is useless unless implemented. Consequently, the High Court found no perversity in the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the petition with a strict timeline for compliance.