J.T. Dhadhal vs Divisional Controller

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr J.S. Brahmbhatt, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Archana M Patel holding the brief of Mr Hardik C Rawal, learned Counsel for the Respondent. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 10.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the award of the Industrial Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") dated 11.12.2006 in Reference (IT) No. 371 of 2002 was upheld.

The brief facts are that the Appellant was working as Conductor with the Respondent Corporation. He was working at Deesa depot of Palanpur division. On 4.10.1995, he boarded the bus which was plied by the Respondent from Ahmedabad to Palanpur and he was sitting in the bus as a staff as he was to resume his duty at Deesa. The driver of the bus was Kishoresinh P. Vihol and the conductor of the bus was P B Makwana. While the bus was going towards Palanpur, Mr Makwana fell ill and he required medical treatment. Therefore, he made a request to the Appellant that he may conduct the bus. Accepting the request of Mr P B Makwana, the Appellant conducted the bus. The bus was checked at Deesa Depot by Checking Inspector, however, no irregularities were found except that instead of Mr Makwana, the bus was conducted by the Appellant. On this basis, charge sheet was issued on 19.10.1995 to the Appellant. Reply was submitted by the Appellant to the charge sheet on 06.12.1995 and thereafter departmental disciplinary proceedings were held. On the basis of the inquiry report, the punishing authority passed the order of punishment on 3.1.1996 withholding one year increment with permanent effect.

The First Appeal preferred by the Appellant was rejected on 31.1.1997 by the Appellate Authority. The Second Appeal was dismissed on 11.10.1998 and thereafter, industrial dispute was raised by the Appellant challenging the punishment order dated 3.1.1996. The by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge both have affirmed the punishment order and rejected the claim of the Appellant.

Mr Brahmbhatt, learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the order of the Tribunal as well as of the learned Single Judge was illegal as they have failed to consider the fact that the Appellant has conducted the bus due to sickness of Mr P B Makwana and on humanitarian consideration, the bus was checked and no irregularities were found and as a matter of fact, he helped the Respondent Corporation by conducting the bus and it was not a case of misconduct.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that without the prior permission of the Corporation no one could conduct the bus on a particular route and in absence of prior permission, the punishing authority took a liberal view by imposing stoppage of one year increment with permanent effect.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. 2007 (4) SLR 240 wherein meaning of the expression "misconduct" has been explained. In para 8 it is mentioned that Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct." In this case, it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that he was not authorised by the Respondent Corporation to conduct the bus. On the request of Mr P B Makwana who was conducting the bus and who had fallen ill, if the bus was required to be conducted, it was always open to the Appellant to obtain instructions from the Respondent Corporation as to whether he may conduct the bus or not but no prior permission was taken. Even the driver of the bus did not know that the Appellant was conducting the bus, therefore, a lenient view has been taken by the Respondent by imposing punishment of stoppage of one year increment permanently. We are of the opinion that conducting the bus without prior permission of the Corporation amounted to misconduct. We do not find any illegality in the award of the Industrial Tribunal or in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.