Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14902/2003 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14902 of 2003
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
CHHAGAN
KANJIBHAI BHADARAKA - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
MS
MONALI H BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR GK RATHOD for
Respondent(s) : 1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 04/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 24th
April 2002 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference
(IT) No.304 of 1999 whereby the Tribunal has held that the punishment
order imposing punishment of putting the respondent from his present
salary to original salary is just and proper and setting aside the
punishment order dated 20th September 1997 passed by the
reviewing authority and divisional controller enhancing the
punishment of putting the respondent o his original salary for five
years.
2. The
respondent herein was serving as Conductor in the petitioner
Corporation. While on duty on 8th February 1996 on a
surprise checking it was found that the respondent has committed
certain irregularities. Though he had collected fare, he had not
issued tickets. Therefore a charge-sheet was issued and a
departmental inquiry was initiated. Ultimately a punishment of
putting the respondent from his present salary to original salary
was imposed. The respondent therefore filed an appeal where, after
issuing notice to the respondent, the penalty was increased to
putting the respondent from his present salary to original salary
for five years. The second appeal filed by the respondent came to be
dismissed.
3. As
a result of hearing and perusal of the record I am of the view that
the Tribunal has erroneously held that the reviewing authority has no
power to enhance the punishment as the reviewing authority has such
power to do so. However, in so far as the final order of the Tribunal
is concerned, the same is just and proper inasmuch as looking to the
gravity of the misconduct I am of the view that imposition of
punishment by the original authority is just and proper and there was
no case for enhancement of punishment.
4. In
the premises aforesaid, the finding of the Labour Court that the
reviewing authority has no power to enhance the punishment and also
the punishment imposed by the reviewing authority is set aside.
Subject to this observation the award is confirmed and the petition
is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. The
benefits of the award, if any, shall be paid to the respondent within
a period of six months from today.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
  Â
Top
