Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3542/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3542 of 2007
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 ?
=========================================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AALAMKHAN
NENAKHAN PATHAN - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
FALGUNI D PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 25/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and award dated 30th November 2005
passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT)
No.381 of 2002, whereby the Tribunal set aside the punishment
imposed by the petitioner-Corporation.
The
facts in brief are that the respondent-driver was chargesheeted for
disciplinary proceedings in relation to an incident that had
occurred on 11th September 1998 where the respondent was
allegedly found to have committed certain irregularities while
driving. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority imposed the
punishment of placing him to his basic pay-scale.
Against
the said order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute, which
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal,
after hearing both the sides, allowed the reference partly by way of
the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularity /
misconduct on fifteen (15) different occasions in the past. Of these
defaults, many defaults related to incidents of similar nature. In
spite of being found guilty of similar defaults in the past, the
respondent did not improve his behaviour and continued to commit
such misconduct, which is highly unbecoming of a public servant.
Looking
to the facts of the case and the past record of the respondent, I am
of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have completely set
aside the order of punishment, as it would amount to granting
premium to a wrong-doer. In my opinion, if the penalty of stoppage
of Three (3) Increments with future effect is imposed on the
respondent, the same would meet with the ends of justice. Orders
accordingly. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. This
order to be implemented within a period of six months from today.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute
to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top