LAWS(GJH)-2010-7-443

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. KANTIBHAI RAVJIBHAI PADALIYA

Decided On July 28, 2010
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Appellant
V/S
KANTIBHAI RAVJIBHAI PADALIYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 30.12.2003 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No. 50 of 1998 whereby the punishment orders dated 19.05.1994 and 30.04.1997 were set aside and penalty of stoppage of six monthly increment without any future effect was imposed.

(2.) The respondent was working with the petitioner Corporation as a Conductor. On 08.05.1993 and 11.02.1997, on checking of the checking squad, certain financial irregularities committed by the respondent by non-issuing the tickets to the passengers inspite of collecting the fare from them. After issuing the charge-sheet and holding departmental inquiry, on 19.05.1994 order No. 176 of 1994 was passed wherein the penalty was imposed upon respondent of stoppage of four yearly increments with permanent future effect and by order No. 206 of 1997 dated 30.04.1997, the penalty was imposed upon the respondent of stoppage of one yearly increment with permanent future effect. Against the said orders, the respondent preferred appeal which was dismissed. The respondent, therefore, raised a dispute which culminated into the aforesaid reference and the Tribunal passed the judgement and award as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents on record. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that looking to the past conduct the penalty imposed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As a result of this exercise it is found that there are as many as 15 defaults committed by the respondent. Most of the defaults pertain to non-issuance of tickets. The respondent is an employee of public sector and he is dealing with public money. Misuse of public money is a serious misconduct. Therefore, punishment imposed by the Tribunal is not sufficient looking to the seriousness of the misconduct. I am of the view of that imposition of penalty of stoppage of one yearly increment with future effect would meet ends of justice.