Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15964/2005 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15964 of 2005
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 CORPROATION- THR' ITS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DILIPSINH
ANUPSINH PUWAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MRS
FALGUNI D PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
GK RATHOD for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MUKESH H RATHOD for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.195/1999 dated 01.07.2004, whereby, the
penalty of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect imposed
by the petitioner-Corporation was substituted by imposing the penalty
of stoppage of one increment without future effect.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent was charge-sheeted for
disciplinary proceedings in relation to an incident that had occurred
on 02.06.1994 where the respondent was found to have reported for
duty in an intoxicated condition. Ultimately, the disciplinary
authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment without
cumulative effect, vide order dated 30.08.1994. The higher authority
of the petitioner-Corporation reviewed the said order of penalty and
thereafter, enhanced it to stoppage of three increments with
permanent effect. The second appeal filed before the appellate
authority against the said order came to be rejected.
3. Being
aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised a dispute, which was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara for adjudication. The
Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the reference
by modifying the punishment by way of the impugned award. Hence, this
petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularity /
misconduct on twelve (12) different occasions in the past. The
misconduct for which the respondent was charge-sheeted is very
serious in nature. The respondent appears to be a habitual defaulter
since he had not improved his beahviour though several opportunities
were granted to him.
5. Looking
to the facts of the case and the past record of the respondent, I am
of the opinion that the penalty imposed by the Tribunal is on the
lesser side. In my opinion, if the penalty of stoppage of Two
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.]
Pravin/*
Top