DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. ALIBHAI MANSU RALI LAXMIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Deepak G. Aloria for the petitioner. By way of the present petition, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Amreli has sought to challenge judgment and award dated 15th October, 2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No. 69 of 2011. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has set aside order dated 30.06.2004 passed by the competent authority of the Corporation, imposing penalty of stoppage of five yearly increments with future effect. It then directed that the workman would not be entitled to any monetary benefits which would arise on account of cancellation of penalty order.

(2.) THE respondent workman, who was working as conductor under the petitioner Corporation was served with the charge -sheet dated 8th March, 2004. The charge levelled against him was that when he was on duty as a conductor on 30th September, 2003 in the bus plying from Bhuj to Amreli, upon the bus being checked by the checking squad of the Corporation, it was detected that he had collected Rs. 130/ - towards fare from two passengers travelling from Morbi to Amreli, and had issued two tickets for Rs. 50/ - bearing Nos. 9167928 and 9167929 which were used tickets reissued. It was further alleged that in similar way, he had collected amount of Rs. 71/ - from a passenger travelling from Samkhiyali to Aatkot, but had reissued the used ticket for Rs. 50/ - bearing No. 9167925. It appears that after the said incident, the respondent came to be transferred to Una Depot from Amreli depot. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman in respect of the aforesaid charge of misconduct in which, upon the inquiry officer having found the charges to be proved, imposed penalty of stoppage of five yearly increments with permanent effect. The first departmental appeal preferred by the respondent workman failed, he raised industrial dispute invoking jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, which culminated into the judgment and award impugned herein.

(3.) THE findings of the inquiry officer was produced at Exh. 25, which bellied the justification because as per the above details noted regarding issuance of tickets and the position of the way -bill obtained, there was no support to the charge from the material on record. The way -bill on the day in question showed that it showed issuance of two tickets bearing Nos. 930 and 931 to the two passengers embanked from Samkhiyali. The very allegation of reuse of tickets as per the charge, was thus without factual foundation. The way -bill was produced at Exh. 17, which indeed stood in conflict with what was stated in charge. The xerox of the tickets were produced at Exh. 23, the numbers on which were not visible and the tickets were misprinted. Considering these factual position, the Tribunal eminently reasoned correct that the inquiry officer could not have concluded that the charge against the workman was proved.