GAFAR A GUNDIGARA Vs. GSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1123 of l994 on January 11, 1995 and the order passed on February 1, 1996 in Misc. Civil Application No. 1154 of 1995 (for Review), has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The appellant who was serving as a Bus Conductor with Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, GSRTC), was found indulging in misappropriation of public funds. Departmental inquiry was initiated against him and on considering the evidence placed before thr Inquiry Officer, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. The appellant, without preferring an appeal before the appropriate authority under the Rules, preferred a Reference before the Labour Court, and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhavnagar, on October 1, 1993 in Reference (LCV) No. 30/89 allowed the Reference partly and directed the GSRTC to reinstate the appellant without backwages, with continuity of service insofar as it relates to gratuity etc. GSRTC preferred Special Civil Application No. 1123/1994 and along with the memo of petition annexed copies of (i) the report of the Inquiry Officer, (ii) the award passed by the Labour Court, and (iii) the default card of the appellant. Learned single Judge on January 11, 1995 quashed and set aside the award made by the Labour Court on October 1, 1993.

(3.) From the decision of the learned single Judge, it appears that the appellant was employed as a Conductor and in the course of his duty, it was found that way-bills were corrected and funds were misappropriated by showing reduced number of sale of tickets on number of days between January 4, 1984 and February 14, 1984. After holding inquiry for the misconduct, the same having been proved, the appellant was dismissed from service after considering his explanation. It is required to be noted that the Labour Court found that the inquiry was properly conducted and also that the finding about the misconduct of the appellant recorded during the course of inquiry was not perverse. Learned single Judge, after considering the relevant material on record, held that on the contrary, ordinarily, in the absence of any mitigating circumstances, in the facts like that of the present case, the decision of management did not call for any interference. No mitigating circumstances for awarding lesser punishment have been shown to exist.