Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SUBHASH versus DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER M.S.R.T.C. AND ANR.

Decided
17 September 2009
Judges listed
TARUN CHATTERJEE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 14 S.C.R. 606 · 2009 INSC 1147
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted. ;:;I

p. 608, margin B

2

Whether the departmental appellate aut~ority was justified in ordering fresh appointment to the appellant while setting aside the order of dismissal from service or it ought to have ordered reinstatement with continuity of. service and full back wages? This is the question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave. ·

p. 608, margin B

3

Subhash Kondiba Sontakke - the appellant - came to be employed as driver in 1980 with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation'). He was made perman~ntin 1985. On September 28, 2000, the appellant was on duty on Beed-Dharur route. While driving bus (MH-20-0- 4332) on that route on that day, it is alleged that the bus ramped oh the railing of the bridge near Chinchavan village due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant and that resulted in damage to the bus. The Transport Officer,' Beed, held an enquiry into the accident and after receipt 'at the. repok, the disciplinary authority issued charge-sheet to the, appell~nt on November 20, 2000. The disciplinary authority also appointed Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charge(s) against the appellant. · ·

p. 608, margin C

4

The appellant responded to the charge-sheet and denied the allegations made therein. His defence was that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure and breakage of rear spring. ·

p. 608, margin F

5

The Inquiry Officer, after conclusion of the enquiry, held that charges ·were proved against the appellant. The disciplinary authority, upon receipt of the enquiry report, issued A notice to the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service and after getting the response from the appellant, vide order dated April 16, 2001, dismissed the appellant from service.

pp. 608–609, margin G

6

The appellant challenged the order of dismissal by filing departmental appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority decided the appeal on May 21, 2001 whereby he set aside the order dismissing the appellant from service and directed that the appellant be appointed afresh C without al;ly monetary benefits for the past service.

p. 609

7

The appellant, consequent upon the order of the First .P,ppellate Authority, joined his duties on June 4, 2001 reserving his right to challenge that order denying him reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. D

p. 609

8

On June 16, 2001, the appellant preferred appeal before 2nd Appellate Authority. The departmental 2nd appeal was dismissed on March 20, 2002.

p. 609

9

The appellant then filed a complaint under Section 28 E r/w item nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'Act, 1971 ') before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad. The said complaint was dismissed by Industrial Court on October 15, 2005, inter alia, holding that the ~ F order of First Appell_ate Authority warranted no interference.

p. 609

10

The appellant challenged the order of the Industrial Court in a writpetition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The Single Judge did not find G any merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same on October 15, 2007.

p. 609

11

That there was negligence on the part of the appellant \n driving the bus on September 28, 2000 on Beed- Dharur route and as a result of which the bus ramped on the railing of H

p. 609