High Court rules against MSRTC over driver’s dismissal based on media reports

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) cannot dismiss an employee solely on the basis of unverified media reports and such action bypasses the mandatory procedure under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules.

Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar observed that the Corporation’s reliance on television and newspaper reports to dismiss a driver without conducting a departmental investigation was unsustainable in law.

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Jalgaon division of the MSRTC challenging the Labor Court and Labor Court orders ordering the reinstatement of driver Anil Pratap Nikam with 50% unpaid wages.

The case arose from an accident involving a bus driven by Nikam on the Amalner-Indore road on July 31, 2019. Following the incident, some television channels and newspapers reported that the driver was drunk at the time.

The company invoked Article 6(1) of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules and terminated Nikam’s services without conducting a formal investigation. The driver then filed a complaint with the Jalgaon Labor Court.

In its decision, the Labor Court found that the dismissal was based entirely on media reports and that MSRTC made no effort to independently verify the accuracy of the allegations. The court held that the case violated the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules and directed reinstatement with 50% unpaid wages. The Labor Court later upheld this decision.

Before the High Court, the MSRTC argued that the case fell within Rule 6(1) of the Rules and that it precluded the obligation of regular investigation in certain cases. The company stated that media reports constituted sufficient material to justify the action.

However, the Court noted that the driver never admitted to the alleged misconduct. He observed that the company had not produced any material indicating that an independent investigation had been conducted to verify the accuracy of media reports.

“In any event, the MSRTC is not justified in rejecting the petitioner by invoking Rule 6(1) of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules,” the court said in its decision.

As to the backlog of wages, the Court found no evidence to conclude that the lower courts’ findings were erroneous.

The court also noted that the Labor Court’s decision was made in 2021, but the company did not reinstate the driver in the intervening period. It was noted that there was no restraining order during this period.

The judge said, “A decision made by the Court does not constitute ‘justice’ in the true sense unless it is enforced and implemented. A decree on paper is of no use. If the authority entrusted with the responsibility of the decree or the Court decision does not comply with it in a timely manner, it must be dealt with seriously.”

The High Court directed the MSRTC to reinstate Nikam within four weeks and pay the outstanding fees within two weeks. The topic was listed for compliance approval on April 22, 2026.