Santosh Khandu Torsalle vs. Maharashtra State Transport Corporation Division Dhule Through Its Divisional Controller
Held
The Court accepted the respondent's (MSRTC) proposal, which was based on the petitioner's second suggestion. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1,40,000 with the respondent Corporation on or before December 13, 2019. This amount was stated to be inclusive of 18% GST. Failure to comply by the stipulated date would result in the vacation of the protection granted, and the management would be at liberty to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on December 14, 2019. The Court also made it clear that if the petitioner committed another act of misappropriation, the management would be justified in awarding the punishment of dismissal from service. The Labour Court complaint (ULP) No. 35 of 2013 was disposed of as infructuous.
Facts
The petitioner, Santosh Khandu Torsalle, filed a writ petition challenging an action by the respondent, MSRTC Latur. The petitioner had allegedly committed misappropriation amounting to Rs. 400. The petitioner, present in court, offered two alternatives for punishment: permanent stoppage of two increments, or payment of 300 times the misappropriated amount (Rs. 400) plus 18% GST, totaling approximately Rs. 1,40,000, as per an MSRTC Circular dated 27.01.2017. The respondent sought time to take instructions. The court had previously granted interim protection to the petitioner, who was in service under orders from the Labour Court/Industrial Court since 2013.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's offer to pay a penalty of approximately Rs. 1,40,000, inclusive of 18% GST, as a resolution for alleged misappropriation, is acceptable to the respondent and the Court. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through his advocate, expressed willingness to accept either permanent stoppage of two increments or the payment of Rs. 1,40,000 (300 times Rs. 400 plus 18% GST) as per MSRTC Circular No. 1/2017. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (MSRTC) sought time to take instructions regarding the petitioner's proposals. Subsequently, the respondent's advocate, on instructions, indicated acceptance of the second suggestion (payment of Rs. 1,40,000), with a caveat regarding future misconduct.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or interpreted, but the context implies the application of internal MSRTC circulars and general principles of service law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WP/13717/2019 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.13717 OF 2019 SANTOSH KHANDU TORSALLE VERSUS MSRTC LATUR ... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Tribhuwan Nitin T. Advocate for Respondent : Shri Wange Anand D. ... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: November 25, 2019 ... PER COURT :-
On 18.11.2019, I had passed the following order:- "1 The learned advocate for the respondent/ MSRTC places on record the details of defaults committed by the petitioner. The said communication is received by him on 16.11.2019, which is taken on record and marked as "X-1" for identification. 2 The learned advocate then tenders a copy of the application made by the petitioner dated 09.11.2019 addressed to the Divisional Controller, Latur stating that he would request for considering his case as per the MSRTC Circular dated 27.01.2017 bearing No.1/2017. The copy of the said representation is taken on record and marked as "X-2" for identification. 3 The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, on instructions taken from the petitioner present in the Court,
WP/13717/2019 2 of 3 that though this Court has passed a speaking order on 14.11.2019, the pe
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.