Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs General Secretary, S T Employee Sangh on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3814/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3814 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
Versus
GENERAL SECRETARY, S T EMPLOYEE SANGH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 24/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Though notice is served, the respondents have not
appeared.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the award dated
14.02.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.154
of 2010, whereby the Reference filed by the respondent
was partly allowed and the punishment order dated
13.07.2006, imposing stoppage of seven increments with
future effect, was set aside, and the learned Tribunal
ordered stoppage of one increment with future effect.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the dispute was raised
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3814/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
before the learned Reference Court, wherein the
respondent claimed to have been working as a conductor
for the past 22 years. On 03.07.2003, while discharging
his duties at the Ahmedabad Depot, Rohat Stop, four
passengers requested the bus to be halted and boarded
it for travel to Jodhpur. The respondent allegedly
collected Rs.128 instead of Rs.56 and a heated
altercation ensued between the respondent and the
passengers. Within one kilometer, a checking officer
boarded the bus and found that the respondent had
misappropriated the fare amount by collecting money
without issuing tickets. A departmental inquiry was
initiated, and a default case was registered as Case
No.13 of 2003. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the
charges were held to be proved, and the respondent was
punished with stoppage of seven increments with future
effect. However, in the Reference filed by the respondent,
the learned Reference Court modified the punishment,
which is now under challenge before this Court.
4. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Sejal Mandavia for the
petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia submits that the
charge against the respondent was duly proved, wherein
it was established that after collecting the fare, the
respondent failed to issue tickets to a group of two
passengers, and further, an amount in excess of the
actual fare was collected. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3814/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Mandavia submits that the checking squad boarded the
bus approximately one kilometer later and found that
although the fare had been collected, no tickets were
issued, allegedly due to a lack of time and an ongoing
altercation. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia further
submits that the respondent has a history of similar
misconduct, as evidenced by 22 defaults recorded in the
default card. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia
submits that despite a full-fledged departmental inquiry
affording due opportunity to the respondent, the learned
Labour Court, without assigning cogent reasons, has
modified the punishment imposed by the competent
authority. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be
set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate Ms.Mandavia for the petitioner and the
reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it
appears that four passengers had boarded the bus near
Rohat Bus Stop after requesting the driver to halt. An
amount of Rs.128 was collected from them. Within a
distance of approximately one kilometer, the checking
squad officers boarded the bus and found that although
the fare had been collected, no tickets were issued to the
said passengers. The learned Reference Court observed
that the punishment imposed was severe and
disproportionate to the charge levelled against the
respondent. While it is true that 22 defaults were
recorded in the respondent's default card, the Reference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3814/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Court took into consideration the short distance covered
before the checking and concluded that the punishment
of stoppage of seven increments with future effect was
excessive. Accordingly, the punishment was substituted
with stoppage of one increment with future effect.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the inquiry papers were not
part of the record before the leaned labour Court. This
Court is of the view that by virtue of section 11(A) of the
I.D.Act, the learned Tribunal has full power to re-
appreciate the evidence and satisfy whether the
evidence in the case justifies the finding of misconduct.
In absence of any papers of the disciplinary proceedings,
this Court is of the view that the learned labour Court has
rightly exercise the power under section 11(A) of the
I.D.Act by substituting the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority for the stoppage of one increment
with future effect. This Court has also considered the fact
that the checking squad boarded the bus within a
distance of merely one kilometer and therefore also the
learned Reference Court was justified in substituting the
punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings.
8. This Court does not find any merit in the petition. Hence,
this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
