AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 05.02.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in Reference [IT] No. 158 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent workman in service and the intervening period be treated as leave without wages.
The short facts of the case are that the respondent workman at the relevant time was working as Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. The allegation against the respondent workman is that while discharging his duties he has committed certain financial irregularities. After following due procedure, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner Corporation dismissed the respondent from service. The first appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of the disciplinary authority came to be rejected. In the second appeal preferred by the respondent workman, the appellate authority has imposed penalty of placing him at basic pay scale and the period between 22.07.1994 to 06.06.1996 was treated as leave without pay. Against the said action, the respondent workman raised a dispute by way of Reference [IT] No. 158 of 1998, which was allowed, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
This Court on 22.06.2004, had passed the following order:
Rule. Ad-interim relief I terms of para 5[c]. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 20.07.2004.
The aforesaid order was confirmed by this Court on 10.08.2004.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation and perused the documents on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularities/misconducts on 37 different occasions in the past. Being an employee, attached with a public utility sector, it was the duty of the respondent to take necessary care and caution while discharging his duties. In spite of having committed such defaults in the past, the respondent had not exercised reasonable care and was found negligent, which is highly unbecoming of a Government employee.
Looking to the facts of the case, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the reference of the petitioner since the negligence of the respondent is clearly established. In my opinion, if the penalty of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect is imposed on the respondent workman, the same would meet with the ends of justice. Orders accordingly. The impugned award qua reinstatement stands confirmed. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. The order shall be implemented within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.