Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7163/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7163 of 2010
=========================================================
GSRTC
- Petitioner(s)
Versus
ISMAIL
HUSEN SHAIKH - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PUSHPADATTA VYAS for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 22/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by Mr.Pushpadatta
Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent. The Rule is fixed
forthwith on consent.
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 23rd
December 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB)
No.383 of 1998, whereby the Reference of the petitioner came to be
rejected.
The
facts in brief are that the respondent was discharging his duty as a
conductor of the bus of the petitioner-Corporation and on account of
an irregularity committed by him on 05th July 1994, he
was issued chargesheet. After following due procedure, the
disciplinary authority of the petitioner-Corporation dismissed him
from service. Against the said action, the respondent raised a
dispute by way of Reference (LCB) No.383 of 1998, which was partly
allowed, by way of impugned judgment and award. Hence, present
petition.
Heard
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the
documents on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious
irregularities/ misconducts on seven different occasions in the
past. Being an employee, attached with a public utility sector, it
was the duty of the respondent to take necessary care and caution
while discharging his duties. Inspite of having committed such
defaults in the past, the respondent had not exercised reasonable
care and was found negligent, which is highly unbecoming of a
Government employee.
Looking
to the facts of the case, the Labour Court ought not to have
rejected the Reference of the petitioner since the negligence of the
respondent is clearly established. In my opinion, if the penalty of
dismissal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority is
substituted by stoppage of one increment with permanent effect, it
would meet the ends of justice. Orders accordingly. The impugned
judgment and award stands modified accordingly.
The
reinstatement will be implemented within a period of one month from
today and the ensuing monetary benefits will be released by the
petitioner within a period of three months from today. The petition
stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Direct
Service is permitted to the respondent qua the petitioner.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top