Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1398/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1398 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GENERAL
SECRETARY S T EMPLOYEES UNION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR KISHOR M PAUL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 21/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 03rd
March 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference
(IT) No.9 of 2001, 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 27th July 1998, he
was issued chargesheet. After following due procedure, the
disciplinary authority of the petitioner-Corporation imposed
punishment of putting him eight stages below his original pay-scale.
The respondent preferred First Appeal which was rejected. In the
Second Appeal, the punishment was reduced to putting him five stages
below. Against the said action, the respondent raised a dispute by
way of Reference (IT) No.9 of 2001, 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 38 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 Industrial Tribunal 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
putting the respondent five stages lower to his original scale
imposed by the Second Appellate Authority is substituted by stoppage
of five increments with permanent effect, it would meet the ends of
justice. Orders accordingly. The impugned judgment and award stands
modified accordingly.
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.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top