Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1632/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1632 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10400 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8058 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1632 of 2010
=========================================================
GHELABHAI
CHHIBABHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER, - Respondent
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GK RATHOD and MR
MUKESH H RATHOD for Appellant.
MR HS MUNSHAW for
Respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.D.SHAH
Date
: 25/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
This
appeal is directed against the order dated 14.7.2009 passed in
Special civil Application No. 10400/2008 dismissing the petition. The
said petition was directed against the judgment and award of the
Industrial Tribunal passed in Reference (IT) No.17/1999 on 14.5.2003.
The said Reference was made pursuant to departmental action against
the appellant. The appellant was found to be involved in the
misconduct of not issuing tickets to passengers even after collecting
money for the same. The disciplinary authority passed an order of
dismissal. The said order was challenged in first departmental
appeal, which came to be
dismissed. The appellant preferred second departmental appeal, where
the appellate authority reduced the punishment from dismissal to
reduction to minimum pay scale. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant
moved the Tribunal and the Tribunal rejected the Reference.
Ultimately, the petition was filed, which also came to be dismissed.
Hence, this appeal.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr.Rathod for the appellant and learned advocate
Mr.Munshaw for the respondent.
3. We
have been taken through the orders and we find that so far as
involvement of the appellant in the misconduct is concerned, it is
indisputable. So far as the departmental proceedings are concerned,
their legality and validity is not under challenge. So far as the
quantum of punishment is concerned, there is consistent finding by
the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. The second appellate
authority has exercised its jurisdiction and has already awarded a
lenient punishment. Nothing is shown to us that the punishment
awarded is disproportionate to the misconduct or that there is an
element of arbitrariness. All aspects are considered by both the
learned Single Judge as well as the learned Tribunal. We do not find
any legitimate reason for interfering with the findings. The appeal,
therefore, must fail and stands dismissed.
Civil
Application No. 8058/2010
Since
the main appeal is dismissed, this civil application does not survive
and stands dismissed.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
[M.D.Shah,J.]
(patel)
Top