Aurangabad Bench, Bombay High Court 
News

Bombay High Court slams MSRTC for relying on press reports to terminate a bus driver

Justice Ajit B Kadethankar held that television and newspaper reports cannot substitute a proper departmental inquiry.

Bar & Bench

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently took strong exception to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) dismissing a bus driver from service based solely on media coverage of a 2019 accident [MSRTC v. Anil Nikam].

In an order passed on March 25, Justice Ajit B Kadethankar held that television and newspaper reports cannot substitute a proper departmental inquiry.

The Court was hearing a plea by MSRTC’s Jalgaon division against orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing the reinstatement of driver Anil Pratap Nikam with 50 percent back wages.

Justice Ajit Kadethankar

Nikam had been dismissed after an accident on July 31, 2019 which happened on the Amalner–Indore road. Television channels and newspapers reported allegations that he was driving in an inebriated condition. 

MSRTC relied only on these media reports and invoked Rule 6(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules to terminate him without holding any departmental inquiry.

The Labour Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal and held that MSRTC violated principles of natural justice by failing to conduct an independent inquiry to verify the media reports. Hence, it ordered Nikam's reinstatement with 50 percent back wages – a decision the Industrial Court later upheld.

On March 25, the High Court upheld the said findings and dismissed MSRTC's petition.

The High Court held that MSRTC was not justified in invoking Rule 6(1) to bypass a full inquiry since Nikam had never admitted guilt and the sole material was unverified media coverage.

The High Court criticised MSRTC's failure to reinstate the driver despite the Labour Court's 2021 order and the absence of a stay.

The judge deemed this omission a matter of serious concern and said it amounted to a contemptuous act on the part of the corporation's responsible officers.

“I am of the considered and definite view that a decision rendered by a Court does not form ‘justice’ in its true meaning unless it is executed and implemented. A decree on paper is of no use. The authority on whom liability of decree/order of Court is casted, if fail to obey it timely, need to be dealt seriously,” the judge observed.

The Court ordered Nikam's reinstatement within four weeks and mandated that all back wages, as directed by the Labour and Industrial Courts, be cleared within two weeks.

Failure to comply with the order would have serious consequences, the Court warned.

Advocate MD Shinde appeared for MSRTC.

Advocate MV Bhamre appeared for the driver.

[Read Order]

Maharashtra State Road Transport v. Anil Nikam.pdf
Preview

My primary aim is to ensure junior lawyers get ample opportunities: Kerala's first ASG P Sreekumar - Interview

Delhi heritage sites: Supreme Court issues contempt notice to Archaeological Survey of India

Spotlight this week: Supreme Court, ED officers and the search for the Constitution’s heart and soul

[Courting Controversy] Dynamic injunctions v. digital whack-a-mole: Keeping up with online infringers

Justice beyond prosecution: The evolving role of the Enforcement Directorate

SCROLL FOR NEXT