Gujarat High Court
Ranchhodbhai Bhikhabhai Nayi vs Divisional Director on 18 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1396 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
RANCHHODBHAI BHIKHABHAI NAYI
Versus
DIVISIONAL DIRECTOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed
by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference
(IT) No.7 of 2023, which came to be dismissed and the
penalty imposed by the appellate authority for stoppage
of increment for three years with future effect came to be
confirmed.
2. The facts leading to the dismissal of the present petition
are that the petitioner was subjected to domestic inquiry
regarding allegations of misconduct. The inquiry officer
found that the petitioner failed to issue valid ticket to a
passenger, which led to an excess collection of Rs.420/-
from the EBTM machine assigned to the petitioner. The
disciplinary authority considered that the petitioner had
been involved in at least 17 similar cases of misconduct
during his tenure of 22 years of service. The petitioner
filed a Reference before the learned Tribunal, seeking to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
set aside the order of punishment and for the directions
to pay the monetary benefit. However, learned Tribunal,
at the end, has dismissed the Reference, which is the
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocates Ms.Rathod appearing for
the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Naidu appearing
for the respondent.
4. The matter was heard by this Court on 05.02.2025 and
on conclusion of the arguments, it was kept for the
dictation today.
5. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the incident
occurred due to a minor defect in the EBTM machine,
which prevented the tickets from being printed, however,
the amount had already been credited to the system, and
the summary ticket number was also recorded as
035523. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that due
to the insistence of the passenger for a ticket, the
petitioner issued a reservation ticket with a handwritten
note mentioning the amount and ticket number, which
matches the handwriting of the present petitioner.
5.1. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the
petitioner is not at all held responsible for such
misconduct, and no irregularity has been committed
by the petitioner and the amount of fare which is
received from the passenger is already deposited to
the corporation, as reflected in the summary ticket
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
number therefore, no question arise of
misappropriation of the fund of the corporation.
Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the timings
are also mentioned on the ticket so as to clearly prove
before the court that before the inspection, the said
handwritten tickets were already issued to the
passengers since the EBTM machine failed to print
them. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that by
imposing the punishment of stoppage of three
increments, the inquiry officer and the learned
Tribunal has failed to consider the severity of
punishment, which indicates a clear dis-
proportionality.
5.2. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the
petitioner has suffered an approximate financial loss of
Rs. 11,11,000/- adversely affecting his retirement
benefits, including entitlement to PF, Gratuity, and
Pension. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the
punishment imposed by the Inquiry Officer, which was
subsequently confirmed by the learned Tribunal, has
had a substantial financial impact. Learned advocate
Ms.Rathod submits that in view of above, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside and the
petition is required to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Naidu appearing for the
respondent-corporation, submits that the statement
recorded by the Checking Officer of the petitioner dated
18.12.2017 suggesting that after collecting the fare of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
Rs.105/- from each passenger, the tickets have not been
issued to four passengers and the handwriting notes
were made on advance booking tickets. It is submitted by
the learned advocate Mr.Naidu that in the said
statement, which was recorded on first point of time, no
any defence regarding non-functioning of the EBTM
machine was taken.
6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that apart from
the present default, there are in all 17 defaults
recorded in his default card, which was of the similar
nature and therefore, considering the overall
circumstance, the punishment of stoppage of three
increments with future effect was imposed. Learned
advocate Mr.Naidu submits that the examination in
chief recorded by the Checking Officer, wherein the
petitioner has specifically stated that the EBTM
machine of the conductor was functioning in a proper
manner. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that the
false defence was created by contending that machine
was not properly working and therefore, ticket could
not come out from the machine.
6.2. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that on
considering the evidence, learned Tribunal has
dismissed the Reference by confirming the
punishment imposed in departmental proceedings and
therefore, no any interfere is required and the petition
is required to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and having
considered the evidence adduced before the learned
Tribunal, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was
serving as a conductor and while he was in charge of the
Bus Route No.191 on 18.12.2017, the inspecting squad
checked the Bus and they had found four passengers
traveling without valid tickets. The Checking Squad
Officer also noted that the petitioner had made a
handwritten note on an advance booking ticket,
mentioning ticket No.035524 and recording the collection
of Rs.420/- from the passengers. Consequentially, the
departmental proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner for misappropriation and pilferage of the
revenue of the corporation. The petitioner has contended
that the EBTM machine was malfunctioning and
preventing the issuance of the tickets and therefore, he
collected Rs.420/- by making note on the advanced
booking ticket issued to the passengers. However, the
fact remains that the present petitioner did not issue
valid tickets despite collecting fares from the passengers.
7.1. It is also not in dispute that a mechanical defect in
the machine was not reported on the day of the
incident. The statement recorded by the reporting
officer specifically indicates that EBTM machine was
functioning properly, as confirmed by the petitioner.
Subsequently, the false defence created regarding
non-functioning of the machine though it was not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
reported to the higher authority or though not
recorded any defect in the machine of the conductor.
Documentary evidence, which was produced by the
respondent-corporation establishes that the petitioner
had a history of 17 similar defaults. In addition to that,
the statements of the passengers, which are recorded
also suggest that on collecting the fare no tickets were
issued and the endorsements were made on the
advanced booking ticket. These statements were
recorded in the presence of the petitioner and after
considering the evidence in detail, learned Tribunal
has concluded that the punishment imposed during
the domestic inquiry is just and proper.
7.2. Admittedly, the legality and validity of the inquiry
had been challenged by the present petitioner and in
that event if the inquiry had been conducted fairly and
properly and there was no victimization or mala fide or
unfair labour practice alleged against the employer
then the learned Tribunal rightly did not interfere with
the punishment imposed by the respondent-employer.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any
merit in the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed
being devoid of any merit.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
