Anilkumar Chhabildas Tailor vs Divisional Controller, S T Corporation

Gujarat High Court

Anilkumar Chhabildas Tailor vs Divisional Controller, S T Corporation on 26 September, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/8730/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8730 of 2025

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
                       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                       ==========================================================
                                    Approved for Reporting                   Yes           No
                                                                                           NO
                       ==========================================================
                                              ANILKUMAR CHHABILDAS TAILOR
                                                         Versus
                                        DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, S T CORPORATION
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                                           Date : 26/09/2025
                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No.15 of 2019 dated 01.04.2023 and in Review (IT) No.2 of 2023 dated 22.10.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Reference on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that a single Reference was filed challenging three different punishments.

2 It is the case of the present petitioner that he was in employment with the GSRTC and, at the time of retirement, he was serving in the cadre of Assistant Traffic Inspector. On 25.12.2010, while on duty as a Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 21:50:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined conductor on the bus route from Billimora to Kala Amba, the petitioner did not complete the trip and returned from Unai without prior approval of the higher authority. This act resulted in monetary loss to the Corporation and also caused administrative difficulties as well as inconvenience to the passengers and the public at large.

2.1 A departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner, culminating in the imposition of a penalty of reduction in basic salary by six stages in Default Case No.224 of 2010, vide order dated 09.11.2011. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be partly allowed by substituting the penalty with stoppage of one increment with future effect, vide order dated 06.04.2013. Thereafter, the second appellate authority further modified the punishment and imposed stoppage of increment for a period of three months without future effect, vide order dated 10.08.2016.

2.2 The petitioner was also issued another chargesheet bearing No.33 of 2010 for misappropriation of amount, wherein a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed on 26.02.2010. The reviewing authority, however, enhanced the Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 21:50:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined penalty to stoppage of increment for a period of six months, vide order dated 19.07.2011. The said order was confirmed up to the second appellate authority and was finally disposed of on 10.08.2016.

2.3 Subsequently, chargesheet No.1 of 2016 came to be issued against the petitioner for calling a strike along with five other employees. The competent authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with future effect, vide order dated 21.12.2016, which came to be upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 24.08.2018.

2.4 Aggrieved by the aforesaid three punishments, the petitioner filed Reference (IT) No.14 of 2019 before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the same on the ground of delay as well as on the technical ground that three separate punishments were challenged in a single Reference, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3 Heard the learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod for the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the respondent.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 4 Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the Reference on a technical ground without examining the merits of the case and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod further submits that if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner, separate References can be filed before the learned Tribunal, and appropriate directions may be issued to the Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law so that the ends of justice are met.

5 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that as the Reference itself was filed after a delay of three years, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the same and, therefore, no error can be said to have been committed warranting interference by this Court.

6 Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and on perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal, it emerges that all three punishments, as narrated in the earlier part of this judgment, came to be assailed by the petitioner in a single Reference.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Admittedly, each of the said punishments arose out of distinct departmental inquiries and rested upon separate charges, independent evidence, and individual findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. In such circumstances, the adjudication of multiple punishments, emanating from different inquiries, in a composite Reference cannot be sustained in law. However, as by impugned order petitioner was made remediless, therefore, in the opinion of this Court one chance is required to be given to challenge the punishment by filing the separate Reference.

7 In that background, the petition is disposed of by giving a liberty to file the separate Reference challenging all three different punishments, which shall be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.14 of 2019.

8 It is needless to clarify that the learned Court shall examine the merits of the case along with any delay, if any, and decide the same afresh in accordance with law.

(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 21:50:41 IST 2025