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
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
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
