Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Madansinh on 4 August, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/5768/2009	 4/ 4	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5768 of 2009
 

 
 
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
 

MADANSINH
VIJAYSINH ZALA - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
JN JADEJA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 04/08/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in
Reference (LCV) No.453/2004 dated 13.02.2009, whereby, the said
reference was partly allowed and the petitioner-Corporation has been
directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with
continuity of service but, without any back wages along with a cost
of Rs.2000/-.

2. The
facts in brief are that while the respondent was discharging his
duties as a Driver of the petitioner-Corporation, he was allegedly
caught red-handed carrying 18 bottles of liquor. After following
necessary procedure, the respondent was dismissed from service vide
order dated 20.06.1996. Two appeals preferred before the competent
authorities of the petitioner-Corporation by the respondent against
the said order of dismissal came to be rejected. Therefore, the
respondent raised a dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a
reference before the Court below. The Court below, after considering
the evidence on record, partly allowed the reference as aforesaid, by
way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The default card of the respondent shows that he had
committed eight defaults in the past. It is true that in the criminal
case filed by the petitioner-Corporation, in connection with the
alleged offence in question, the respondent came to be acquitted.
However, the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than
what is needed in a departmental inquiry. In a criminal case, the
prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt but,
the same is not the case in the departmental proceedings. In this
case, in the departmental inquiry proceedings, the charges levelled
against the respondent have proved. Undoubtedly, the act of the
respondent is serious, particularly, in a dry State like ours.
However, looking to the past record of the respondent and the facts
of the present case, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed by
the petitioner appears to be very harsh and disproportionate.

4. While
granting reinstatement with continuity in service to the respondent,
the Court below ought to have imposed some penalty on the respondent.
In my opinion, if the respondent is imposed the penalty of stoppage
of two increments with future effect, the same would meet with the
ends of justice.

5. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned
award of the Court below directing the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent on his original post with continuity of service but,
without any back wages is confirmed. However, the respondent is
imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect.
It is, however, observed that if in the future the respondent is
found guilty of a similar kind of offence, then the
petitioner-Corporation shall be at liberty to take necessary
appropriate action against him, without showing any mis-placed
sympathy on such person since the award of the Court below qua
reinstatement in service is confirmed on the assurance given by the
learned counsel for the respondent that he will not indulge in such
kind of activities in the future. 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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

103 queries in 0.159 seconds.