Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7923/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7923 of 2010
=========================================================
RAJKOT
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
A
K KHIRANI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PR NANAVATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 12/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner-Corporation has prayed to quash
and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.47/1996 dated 17.11.2008,
whereby, the said Reference was allowed and the order passed by the
petitioner-Corporation imposing punishment of stoppage of four
increments with future effect on the respondent w.e.f. 17.11.1988 was
quashed and set aside along with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The
facts in fact, as emerging from the record, are that the respondent
was serving as a Mechanical & Electrical Supervisor with the
petitioner-Corporation. On 23.05.1988 the respondent allegedly did
not report for duty and had not taken due care for getting the
motor-pump repaired. Therefore, show cause Notice dated 30.05.1988
was served upon him as to why necessary steps should not be taken
against him u/s. 56(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal
Corporations Act. The respondent gave his reply to the said Notice.
Being dissatisfied with the said reply, the petitioner-Corporation
issued second show cause Notice to the respondent on 13.10.1988.
3. Ultimately,
by order dated 17.11.1988, the respondent was imposed the punishment
of stoppage of four increments with future effect. Against the said
order, the respondent made representations to the competent authority
of the petitioner-Corporation. However, no positive decision was
taken. Therefore, the respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal
by way of a reference. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence
on record, allowed the said Reference. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on
record. From the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below, it
appears that no departmental inquiry was initiated against the
respondent, before imposing the punishment in question. The said fact
is also established from the oral evidence of the witness, who was
examined by the Tribunal below. Merely because the respondent was
heard, it could not be said that proper inquiry, as prescribed under
the law, had been initiated. Thus, it is established that the
impugned order passed by the petitioner-Corporation is bad in law and
nonest.
5. Moreover,
it has also been stated by learned counsel Mr. Nanavati that the
respondent-employee has retired from service.
6. In
view of the above, I find no reasons to interfere in this petition. I
am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the
findings arrived at by the Tribunal below. Consequently, the petition
is summarily rejected. No costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top