Bombay HC deems that the wrongdoings of Government workers cannot go unpunished

While hearing an appeal by a former MSRTC bus conductor against an order directing for the termination of services of the appellant, the Bombay High Court observed,

“The approach in this country of believing that when one works for government no action can ever be taken no matter how persistently one is found to be doing wrong is an approach that needs to now stop as fast as possible."

The appellant, Jaising Sonawane, was employed with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) as a bus conductor. An inspection squad checked a bus on the Pune to Borivali route in December 1995, on which the appellant was on duty. It was found that Sonawane had wrongly punched some tickets and had an excess of ?24.50 in his possession. During the inspection it was also revealed that the wrongly punched tickets were not mentioned in the way bill, and a chargesheet was filed.

After an enquiry, the appellant’s services with the MSRTC were terminated.

Sonawane then raised an industrial dispute and a reference came to be made to the labour court, which passed an award in February 2005 dismissing his reference, prompting him to file the petition before the High Court. The single-judge refused to interfere with the labour court's order after noting that this was not the first instance of misconduct on Sonawane's part.

Before the Division Bench, counsel for the petitioner who appeared at that time made only one submission and that related to the disproportionality of the punishment. It was argued that a lenient view ought to have been taken and that a lesser punishment would serve the ends of justice.

In this backdrop, the Bench stated that though proportionality was crucial in decision-making processes, it did not mean that a lenient view could be taken of every infringement.

"As to the generality of the proposition that proportionality is crucial in any decision making process, there cannot be any doubt. But this does not mean that every infraction has to be allowed to be got away with just a slap on the wrist, as it was. When one assesses the doctrine of proportionality, one looks not only at the immediate cause inviting punishment but also at the entire context and, in a given case, a pattern or a history of conduct especially past conduct," it stated.

Replying to the petitioner's contention that there was no actual defalcation or misappropriation on his part, the Court underlined that the labour court had concluded that there was a mala fide intention on Sonawane's part.

"The order of the Labour Court is abundantly clear. In paragraph 12 the Labour Court found that there was a mala fide intention on Sonawane’s part to use these six tickets for a return journey. In other words, this means that there was some illicit intention for the journey in one direction. The argument by Mr Govilkar that there was no actual defalcation or misappropriation is less than impressive. It means that unless somebody actually commits theft, no action can be taken even if the person is apprehended while in the process of attempting a wrong doing," it said.