1. The petitioner has taken out present petition against award dated 16/07/2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No.140 of 2008 whereby the Industrial Tribunal has not entertained the reference and rejected the reference preferred by present petitioner.
2. So far as the factual background, relevant for considering and deciding present petition is concerned, it emerges from the record that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, in the employment of the respondent State Road Transport Corporation and he was working as a Conductor. It emerges from the record that on 09/08/2000 when the bus of the corporation was going from Dakor to Agarva, it was intercepted after about three to four kilometers from the place of departure and it was noticed that the petitioner herein had not issued tickets to two groups of about five passengers after having collected fare in the sum of Rs.12.50/-. On such reported misconduct, charge sheet was issued and departmental proceedings by way of departmental inquiry were initiated and conducted. Upon conclusion of the inquiry proceedings the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings/report wherein the Inquiry Officer recorded in the conclusion that charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. After considering the material on record and the past service record of the petitioner, disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to impose penalty of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect.
3. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said decision and that therefore, he preferred appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considered the contentions of the petitioner herein and after considering the record and submissions, modified the order of penalty by reducing the penalty of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect to stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. Differently put the appellate authority also agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority that the case of the petitioner deserved to be visited with appropriate penalty. The appellate authority reduced the extent of penalty as mentioned above.
4. The petitioner was aggrieved even by the said decision of the appellate authority and raised the industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by the appropriate government to the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute culminated into Reference (ITN) No.140 of 2008. During the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner herein admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry proceedings, however, challenged the findings of the Inquiry Officer as unsustainable. The contesting parties placed on record their respective evidence and advanced their arguments in support of their respective cases. After considering the material on record and submissions by the contesting parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the decision of the Departmental Appellate Authority did not warrant any interference and it was just and proper in the facts of the case. Therefore, by the impugned award the Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned award and hence present petition is filed by the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Departmental Appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had admitted the charge whereas factually the petitioner has not admitted the charge. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi further submitted that since the decision of the appellate authority and even of the Industrial Tribunal is based on such impression, the same are unsustainable. He submitted that actually the petitioner Conductor was in process of issuing tickets and the checking squad intercepted the bus and that therefore he could not issue other tickets. Mr.Joshi submitted that petitioner had not admitted the charge. Thus the orders by the authorities and award by the court are not proper. Any other contention is not raised.
6. As noticed herein above the petitioner admitted legality and propriety of the Inquiry. Of course the petitioner challenged the findings of the inquiry officer, however, on the basis of the material on record he could not successfully assail the said findings.
7. It is pertinent to note that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were examined by the disciplinary authority. After considering the material on record the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and then on consideration of the material on record and the service record of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner's case deserved to be visited with penalty. Consequently the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect.
8. In appeal, the appellate authority also agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that the charges against the petitioner were proved.
9. Thus, at the stage of inquiry proceedings and subsequently on two different stages, findings of fact have been recorded with regard to the charges and the charges leveled against the petitioner are held proved.
10. Based upon such findings of facts the appellate authority agreed with the conclusion of inquiry officer confirmed by the disciplinary authority and also agreed with the decision of disciplinary authority that the case deserved to be visited with order of penalty however, considered it appropriate to reduce the quantum of penalty and therefore, modified the order and quantified the penalty at stoppage of three increments with future effect reducing the quantum from stoppage of five increments with permanent effect.
11. The Tribunal, after considering all these aspects, found itself in agreement with the findings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.
12. On appropriate examination of record the Tribunal has also not found it necessary to interfere with the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved.
13. When at three different stages three concurrent orders and findings of facts are recorded, this Court would not interfere with such case and the petition under Article-227 of the Constitution of India.
14. Furthermore, when the bus was intercepted it had traveled-passed distance of about 3 kms. And secondly the petitioner had already received the fare from the passengers. Hence, the petitioner's excuse that he could not issue tickets has not been accepted by the inquiry officer disciplinary officer and appellate authority. There is nothing on record to convince this Court to disturb such findings of fact.
15. So far as the penalty is concerned, the appellate authority has in his jurisdiction and discretion interferes with the quantum of penalty and reduced the penalty from stoppage of five increments to three increments with future effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner, though in alternative of his main contention, submitted that the gravity of the penalty may be reduced by converting the penalty from permanent effect to non-permanent effect. However, any justification in support of such request is not made out. When principles of natural justice are not violated, legality of inquiry is admitted and it is found that charges are proved, then it is not open to the court to interfere with quantum of penalty, which, even otherwise, is a matter in the discretion and in the realm of management, unless it is found to be too harsh and disproportionately or shockingly excessive compared to gravity of charge and hinges on the verge of victimization.
16. At this stage, it is relevant to take into account that past service record of the petitioner (i.e. the default card) which reflects about seven past incidents wherein the penalty of stoppage of increments without permanent effect had to be imposed. Thus, even after past incidents the petitioner has continued with similar conduct and therefore in present case the appellate authority has considered it appropriate to impose the aforesaid penalty.
17. In the facts and circumstance of present case, this court does not find any compelling reason to disagree with the decision of the Tribunal and/or to hold that the decision of the Tribunal is without any base or arbitrary or perverse. No case to interfere with the petition is not made out. Therefore, the petition is rejected.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top