By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 30.1.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 248 of 1989 whereby the Tribunal has reduced the penalty imposed by the authority to stoppage of three increments without future effect. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent workman was working ass a driver with the petitioner. He remained absent unauthorisedly from service. Notice was given to the respondent asking for his explanation for his absence from duty. He did not give any reply to the notice nor did he report to duty. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent. Charge sheet was issued to him. No reply was given to the charge sheet. After departmental proceedings, ultimately, the respondent was dismissed from service by the petitioner.
3. The respondent preferred first appeal before the competent authority which was dismissed. He filed second appeal before the appellate authority which was allowed by order dated 29.11.1985 by reducing the penalty of dismissal to reinstating the respondent to his original post and treating the intervening period as leave without pay.
4. The respondent workman preferred Reference (IT) No. 248 of 1989 before the Tribunal against the order dated 29.11.1985 passed by the second appellate authority.
5. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, passed the award as aforesaid. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that serious lapses were committed by the respondent workman. He had committed 14 defaults. Therefore, looking to his past 14 defaults, he was dismissed from service. The first appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. However, in second appeal the reviewing authority reduced the penalty and reinstated him in service. The intervening period was ordered to be treated as leave without pay. However, he filed Reference in which the Tribunal passed the award by reducing the penalty to stoppage of three increments without future effect. Considering the serious lapses committed by the workman, the penalty imposed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence the order of the Tribunal is required to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and contended that Tribunal has passed just and proper order. No interference is called for by this Court with the order of the Tribunal.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in mind the serious lapses and defaults committed by the respondent workman, the penalty imposed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. I am of the opinion that ends of justice will meet if the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect is imposed upon the respondent workman.
8. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect is imposed upon the respondent workman. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
9. The effect of this order will be implemented within six months from the date of its receipt.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)