Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6510/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6510 of 2009
=========================================================
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
B
M JAISWAL - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
KIRAN D PANDEY for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 09/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by Mr.Mukesh H.
Rathod, 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 15th
September 2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in
Reference (IT) No.31 of 2004, whereby the Reference of the
petitioner came to be rejected.
The
facts in brief are that the respondent was discharging his duty as a
driver of the bus of the petitioner-Corporation and on account of an
irregularity committed by him on 18th July 2001, he was
issued chargesheet. After following due procedure, the disciplinary
authority of the petitioner-Corporation imposed punishment of
stoppage of five increments with permanent effect. The respondent
preferred First Appeal, however, it was rejected. Against the said
action, the respondent raised a dispute by way of Reference (IT)
No.31 of 2004, 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 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
stoppage of five increments with future effect imposed by the
disciplinary authority is substituted by stoppage of two 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 six months from today. , The respondent is entitled to
the benefits from the date of award till its realization. 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
