Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/172/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 172 of 2006
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11364 of
2005
=========================================================
SULEMAN
G MANDALI - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RD KINARIWALA, MR DP KINARIWALA
for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MS ARCHNA N PATEL, MR HARDIK C RAWAL for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 25/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We have
heard Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned Advocate for Mr. D.P. Kinariwala,
for the appellant and Ms. Archna N. Patel, learned Advocate for Mr.
Hardik C. Rawal, learned Counsel for the respondent-Transport
Corporation.
2. The
appellant was a driver in State Road Transport Corporation. On
24.04.1992, the bus, which he was driving, met with an accident, in
which pillion rider of the cycle died. A criminal case was lodged
against the appellant, in which he was acquitted. Departmental
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and after
completion of the departmental proceedings, withholding of three
increments with future effect was imposed on the appellant. The
appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed and the punishment
of withholding three increments, with future effect, was reduced to
withholding two increments with future effect
3. The
appellant raised an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal, by
his judgment dated 03.01.2005, did not interfere with the order of
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and dismissed the
appeal. The order of Industrial Tribunal was challenged before the
learned Single Judge, which also confirmed the order of the Tribunal,
by judgment dated 17.06.2005. It is this order, which has been
challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
4. Learned
Counsel for the appellant has urged that since the appellant was
acquitted in criminal proceedings and since, the charges and evidence
were same, he could not be punished in departmental disciplinary
proceedings.
5. When
the charges are same and criminal and departmental proceedings are
going on together, then the question may arise as to which proceeding
is to continue and which one is to be stayed. The law does not
provide that, if, a
person has been acquitted in a criminal proceedings, departmental
proceedings cannot be initiated against such an employee or workman.
In departmental disciplinary proceedings, the punishment of
withholding three increments with future effect was imposed on the
appellant, which was reduced to withholding two increments, by the
appellate authority. Substantial relief has been granted by the
appellate authority. We do not find any reason or justification to
interfere with order passed by the Industrial Tribunal as well as by
the learned Single Judge.
6. This
appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The parties
shall bear their own costs.
(V.
M. SAHAI, J.)
(G.B.SHAH,
J.)
Umesh/
Top