Prashant Devidas Pande vs D.T.O., M.S.R.T.C. Bhandara. Advocate - Prakash Nichkawade — 6/2019

Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28302. Status: Further Chief. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.

Further Chief Next hearing 27-Mar-2026 this date has passed

Complaint ULP

CNR: MHLC360000252019

Filing Number

52/2019

Filing Date

26-Feb-2019

Registration No

6/2019

Registration Date

26-Feb-2019

Court

Labour Court, Bhandara

Judge

1-Judge

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28302

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Prashant Devidas Pande

    Adv. Sachin Eknath Raghorte

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.D.T.O., M.S.R.T.C. Bhandara. Advocate - Prakash Nichkawade

Case History

  1. 27-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Further Chief

    Judge

  3. 27-Feb-2026

    Further Chief

    Judge

  4. 13-Feb-2026

    Further Chief

    Judge

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    Further Chief

    Judge

  6. 31-Jan-2026

    Further Chief

    Judge

  7. 23-Jan-2026

    Further Chief

    Judge

  8. 09-Jan-2026

    Further Chief

    Judge

  9. 19-Dec-2025

    Further Chief

    Judge

  10. 01-Dec-2025

    Further Chief

    Judge

  11. 21-Nov-2025

    Further Chief

    Judge

  12. 14-Nov-2025

    Further Chief

    Judge

  13. 03-Oct-2025

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  14. 29-Aug-2025

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  15. 27-Jun-2025

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  16. 29-Apr-2025

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  17. 28-Feb-2025

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  18. 30-Jan-2025

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  19. 04-Jan-2025

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  20. 29-Nov-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  21. 27-Sep-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  22. 30-Aug-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  23. 19-Jul-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  24. 07-Jun-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  25. 02-May-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  26. 12-Apr-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  27. 01-Mar-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  28. 20-Jan-2024

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  29. 26-Dec-2023

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  30. 20-Nov-2023

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  31. 30-Sep-2023

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  32. 25-Aug-2023

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  33. 07-Jul-2023

    Awaiting R and P

    Judge

  34. 17-Jun-2023

    Further Chief

    Judge

  35. 02-Jun-2023

    Further Chief

    Judge

  36. 29-Apr-2023

    Further Chief

    Judge

  37. 15-Apr-2023

    Further Chief

    Judge

  38. 24-Mar-2023

    Further Chief

    Judge

  39. 24-Feb-2023

    Further Chief

    Judge

  40. 04-Feb-2023

    Further Chief

    Judge

  41. 21-Jan-2023

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  42. 07-Jan-2023

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  43. 23-Dec-2022

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  44. 03-Dec-2022

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  45. 11-Nov-2022

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  46. 12-Oct-2022

    Judgment on P.P.View PDF

    Case Summary Court: Labour Court, Bhandara Case: ULP 06/2019 (Judgment on Preliminary Issues) Date: 12/10/2022 The Labour Court declared that while the departmental enquiry against bus conductor Prashant Devidas Pande was conducted fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice, the Enquiry Officer's findings declaring him guilty of consuming liquor on duty are perverse and unreliable. The court found the officer relied solely on a medical certificate noting alcohol smell on the complainant's breath, despite the same certificate confirming he showed no other signs of intoxication and explicitly stating he was not under influence of liquor; additionally, no chemical analysis report was produced and no FIR was filed against the complainant (unlike the driver). The case proceeds to hearing on remaining issues with the respondent Corporation directed to lead evidence to justify its dismissal action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  47. 12-Oct-2022

    Evidence

    Judge

  48. 30-Sep-2022

    Further Hearing

    Judge

  49. 17-Sep-2022

    Pre Issues Hearing

    Judge

  50. 20-Aug-2022

    Pre Issues Hearing

    Judge

  51. 22-Jul-2022

    Pre Issues Hearing

    Judge

  52. 10-Jun-2022

    Evidence

    Judge

  53. 01-Apr-2022

    Evidence

    Judge

  54. 25-Mar-2022

    Evidence

    Judge

  55. 04-Mar-2022

    Evidence

    Judge

  56. 11-Feb-2022

    Evidence

    Judge

  57. 29-Jan-2022

    Evidence

    Judge

  58. 30-Dec-2021

    Evidence

    Judge

  59. 10-Dec-2021

    Evidence

    Judge

  60. 12-Nov-2021

    Evidence

    Judge

  61. 14-Oct-2021

    Evidence

    Judge

  62. 23-Sep-2021

    Issues

    Judge

  63. 27-Aug-2021

    Issues

    Judge

  64. 06-Aug-2021

    Cost.

    Judge

  65. 12-Jul-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  66. 18-Jun-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  67. 28-May-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  68. 05-May-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  69. 06-Apr-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  70. 26-Mar-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  71. 20-Mar-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  72. 10-Mar-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  73. 23-Feb-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  74. 09-Feb-2021

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  75. 04-Feb-2021

    Evidence

    Judge

  76. 16-Jan-2021

    Evidence

    Judge

  77. 18-Dec-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  78. 12-Nov-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  79. 16-Oct-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  80. 18-Sep-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  81. 21-Aug-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  82. 18-Jul-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  83. 19-Jun-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  84. 05-Jun-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  85. 29-May-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  86. 08-May-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  87. 18-Apr-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  88. 20-Mar-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  89. 06-Mar-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  90. 17-Feb-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  91. 24-Jan-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  92. 10-Jan-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  93. 02-Jan-2020

    Evidence

    Judge

  94. 13-Dec-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  95. 16-Nov-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  96. 18-Oct-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  97. 27-Sep-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  98. 14-Sep-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  99. 11-Sep-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  100. 16-Aug-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  101. 09-Aug-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  102. 19-Jul-2019

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  103. 05-Jul-2019

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge

  104. 28-Jun-2019

    Evidence

    Judge

  105. 20-Jun-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  106. 15-Jun-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  107. 07-Jun-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  108. 01-Jun-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  109. 30-May-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  110. 24-May-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  111. 30-Apr-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  112. 16-Apr-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  113. 26-Mar-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  114. 07-Mar-2019

    Order ExhibitView PDF

  115. 07-Mar-2019

    Written Statement

    Judge

  116. 06-Mar-2019

    Order on Exh

    Judge

  117. 02-Mar-2019

    Appearance

    Judge

  118. 26-Feb-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  119. 26-Feb-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 6/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Court: Labour Court, Bhandara Case: ULP 06/2019 (Judgment on Preliminary Issues) Date: 12/10/2022 The Labour Court declared that while the departmental enquiry against bus conductor Prashant Devidas Pande was conducted fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice, the Enquiry Officer's findings declaring him guilty of consuming liquor on duty are perverse and unreliable. The court found the officer relied solely on a medical certificate noting alcohol smell on the complainant's breath, despite the same certificate confirming he showed no other signs of intoxication and explicitly stating he was not under influence of liquor; additionally, no chemical analysis report was produced and no FIR was filed against the complainant (unlike the driver). The case proceeds to hearing on remaining issues with the respondent Corporation directed to lead evidence to justify its dismissal action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case