Gafar A. Gundigara vs G.S.R.T.C. on 9 December, 1998
5. The learned advocate Mr. Shelat appearing for the petitioner corporation submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error while considering the case under the provisions of sec. 11A of the Act. He further submitted that the learned Judge also erred in appreciating the judgment of this Court in the case of Gafar A. Gundigara v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2000(1) LLJ 695. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate submitted that the learned Judge erred in observing that the judgment referred to is regarding "number of cases of misappropriation", therefore, it cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Mr.Shelat, learned advocate emphasised that the learned Judge has committed a grave error when he has recorded that, "on perusal of the default card of the respondent workman, there is not a single misconduct of misappropriation". Mr.Shelat, learned advocate submitted that the default card was produced before the learned Judge and it was perused by the learned Judge and the aforesaid finding is recorded after perusal of the default card. The default card is produced before this Court. In all, 13 instances are recorded in this card, of which incident recorded at serial no.2 is, Case No.317 of 1976, in Column 3, it is recorded that, 'on 29th June 1976 in a bus enroute from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad, 10 passengers travelling from Rajkot to Chotila were found of whom fare was collected (ticket not issued) and in respect of one passenger from Rajkot to Chotila, ticket was not issued and fare was also not collected and in respect of one passenger from Rajkot to Bamanbore though fare was collected, the ticket was not issued. In Column 5 of the default card it was mentioned that the respondent was imposed punishment of reduction to the initial pay scale of the Conductor, by order dated 23.9.1977. There is another incident which is recorded at serial no.3 which bears Case No. 360 of 14, wherein in a bus from Somnath to Jamnagar on 29.6.1977 fare of eleven and half passengers was not collected. For that by order dated 5.3.1978, punishment of dismissal was imposed. Another case was also recorded at serial no. 6 being Case No. 17/ 17 wherein on 24.12.1986 on city route from Kananpara to Union Bank, one passenger was found to be fare not collected. Similarly, the incident at serial no. 7, Case No. 124/1, relates to 3.6.1986 wherein in city bus of Rajkot City, enroute from Jubilee to Headquarters, one passenger found, fare not collected. Similarly at serial nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, there are instances wherein number of cases of fare not collected are recorded. The case which is recorded at serial no. 12 of the default card bearing no. 61/ 1 wherein on 5.7.1989 on route from Jamnagar to Somnath, three passengers going from Junagadh to Veraval, respondent had issued three tickets of Rs. 10/-, denomination which were used earlier, were reissued. Therefore, by an order dated 16.12.1988, the respondent was reduced to the initial stage of pay scale of the Conductor. Then at serial no. 13, the present case is recorded.