1. Rule. Mr. Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Paritosh Calla, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 waive service of notice of Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
1.1 Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hardik Rawal for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Rathod for the respondent workman.
2. By way of filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 155 of 2008 whereby the punishment order imposed upon the respondent workman was quashed and set aside and also directed the petitioner to fix the wages of the respondent workman and to consider the interim period as notional without the benefit of arrears.
3. According to the corporation, the workman was working as a conductor with the petitioner corporation. During the course of his duty he was found guilty of collecting fare from four passengers without issuing tickets till the checking.
3.1 In respect of the said charge, departmental inquiry was held against the driver while following the principles of natural justice and thereafter by Order dated 04.08.2005, a punishment of stoppage of five increments with future effect was imposed. Against the said order the respondent workman preferred departmental first appeal and the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The said order was challenged by the respondent workman before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. Rawal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that already a lenient view was taken by the appellate authorities by imposing only stoppage of five increments. He submitted that looking to the gravity of offence which is embezzlement of money and the default card which shows 44 defaults, this Court may impose some punishment on the respondent workman instead of allowing him to go scott-free.
5. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for in the same. He submitted that the respondent workman is about to retire and therefore this Court may not impose any punishment on the workman.
6. I have perused the materials placed on record. The appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the competent authority for the misconduct is just and proper and therefore the same was confirmed.
6.1 The Tribunal has gone into the details of the case and has come to the conclusion that the punishment was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal found that the punishment was on higher side as compared to the charge levelled against the workman. The default card of the workman shows 44 defaults on the part of the workman. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that considering the impact of the accident some punishment ought to have been imposed upon the employee so as to have a deterrent effect on him and similarly situated people.
6.2 In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside and a punishment of stoppage of five increments with future effect as imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority is required to be imposed upon the workman.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Punishment of stoppage of five increments with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent workman. The award of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The order of the appellate authority is confirmed. This order shall be implemented forthwith and the respondent workman shall be paid his retirement dues on the basis of the said punishment within a period of six months from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya