MAGANBHAI L CHAUHAN Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent of Special Civil Application No. 4711 of 1998 has preferred this Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 2.11.1998.

(2.) Short facts, as it emerges from the record, are as under :-

(3.) It is required to be noted that looking to the nature of service, if the appellant was not on duty, GSRTC was unable to operate buse in charge of the appellant on a routes in the absence of the appellant, a Conductor. It was also found that in the past also, he used to remain absent and schedule was required to be cancelled for which a small amount of fine was imposed which was recovered from his salary. Learned Single Judge found that despite the misconduct in past, opportunities were repeatedly given but he did not improve. Learned Single Judge, on going through the award found that it is a case of willful absence which amounts to misconduct. When the Medical certificate indicates vaguely that he was suffering from abdominal pain and fever without giving any details and that too after the notice was given to him, the authorities did not accept the same more particularly as there was a correction in the date. The authorities found that the medical certificate is not reliable. The Labour Court was required to assign reasons while interfering with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority including that of punishment. Before the Inquiry Officer, opportunity was given to the appellant to examine witnesses. The appellant could have examined the Doctor to prove that he was sick. If the certificate was accepted by the authority on presentation, then there was no question of holding an inquiry. Inquiry was held because the certificate was not accepted by the authorities, and therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to examine the Doctor with a view to prove that he was infact sick. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Inquiry Officer's report clearly indicates that the appellant was found remaining absent on number of occasions and the same has been accepted by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has specifically observed, after referring to various incidents for remaining absent without leave that "this workman has a habit of remaining absent without previous leave; In case if he was sick, he does not care to convey the same to the employer; The GSRTC is for public services; If an employee does not join duty, bus service is likely to be affected on a particular route; Thus, on such responsible position if an employee remains absent without prior information, cannot be tolerated. The said act amounts to misconduct as per the Rules". Labour Court, considering the past record also recorded a finding that on 14 occasions, the workman remained absent without leave.