Gujarat High Court
Arvindbhai vs G on 14 July, 2008
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9226/2008 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9226 of 2008
For Approval
and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
ARVINDBHAI
HIMMATBHAI MANJARAWALA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
G
S R T C - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.MRUDUL
M BAROT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PRIYANK P JHAVERI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 14/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
In this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 4.12.2002 (it appears that the date ought to be 4.12.2006) passed by the Industrial Tribunal in reference (IT) No.96 of 2002 whereby, the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the reference preferred by the present respondent holding, inter alia, that the order of punishment enforced by the respondent was justified and proper and did not warrant any interference at the hands of the Tribunal in exercise of the powers under section 11(A) of the Act aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.
Mr. Barot appears for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is a conductor employed by the respondent corporation. He submitted that the passengers were not examined by the disciplinary authority and that even from the statements of the passengers, it does not come out that the passengers had made any payment though they stated that they were issued reused tickets by the petitioner. He submitted that since it was not the case that the passengers had made any payment, the learned Tribunal's order is erroneous and unjust and the Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction. No other contention is raised by Mr. Barot.
From the record, it is noticed that the allegation of issuing reused tickets was levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner herein was served with the charge-sheet alleging, inter alia, that while he was on duty on 8.7.1998, it was noticed during checking that, 21 tickets were issued, however, 3 tickets were reused tickets. A departmental inquiry was conducted in connection with the said charge-sheet and upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the record and the report of the inquiry officer, passed an order imposing penalty of placing the petitioner at the minimum / original pay scale.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein took the matter before the First Appellate Authority, who after considering the gravity of the charge and the quantum of punishment, decided to reduce the penalty and passed an order, modifying the order of the disciplinary authority directing that the petitioner may be reduced in pay scale by 10 stages.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order also, took the matter before the Second Appellate Authority who, after considering the facts of the case as well as gravity of the charge and quantum of penalty decided to further reduce the penalty by directing that the petitioner may be reduced in the pay scale by 6 stages.
The said order was also not acceptable to the petitioner and therefore, he challenged the said order before the Industrial Tribunal, Surat by way of reference, which culminated into reference (IT) No.96 of 2000. After hearing the petitioner and the present respondent, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner herein was proved. Upon reaching the said conclusion, the learned Tribunal held, and rightly so, that there was neither any justification nor any authority conferred on it under section 11(A) of the Act to interfere in the matter so as to set aside the order of the Second Appellate Authority. The learned Tribunal recorded the findings that the penalty imposed by the authority was proper and justified. Upon such findings, the learned Tribunal rejected the reference.
It is pertinent that the charge has been held as proved by the disciplinary authority, First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority as well as the Industrial Tribunal.
In view of such concurrent findings, there is no reason or justification for this Court to interfere with the said findings of fact. The charge levelled against the petitioner amounts to charge of dishonesty. Such cases do not warrant or justify any leniency and any sympathy would be totally misplaced. The Industrial Tribunal has also rightly declined to interfere with the order imposed by the departmental authority. The findings and conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal do not call for or warrant any interference by this Court. The award challenged by the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality or any manifest and apparent error of jurisdiction or law. Hence, the same is not interfered with. The present petition is therefore, rejected. No order as to costs.
[K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc Top