DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. PRAVINSINH N GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Upadyay, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar, Dated : 27.02.2012, rendered in Reference (I.T.) No. 46 of 1999, whereby, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order of the competent authority dated 02.08.96, imposing the punishment of stoppage of five increments with future effect on the respondent as well as the order dated 31.07.98, whereby the said order was confirmed in the appeal.

(3.) HEARD , learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It appears that the case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the alleged accident had occurred due to technical reasons and that there was no fault on his part and that he had already made a note in the log sheet for getting the said bus repaired vide entry No. 301225, Dated : 10.09.1995. It was, further, the case of the respondent that the departmental proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record found that in the case on hand, the show cause notice and charge sheet were issued by the same officer and the very same officer also conducted the departmental proceedings and had imposed the punishment on the respondent. The tribunal further found that before imposing penalty on the respondent, no second show cause notice was issued to the respondent. The tribunal, therefore, come to the conclusion that the departmental proceedings were vitiated and in violation of the provisions of principles of natural justice and quashed and set aside the punishment imposed of the respondent. However, while doing so the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that as regards the averment of the respondent of non-supply of necessary documents is concerned, the same were part of the old record which was not available with the petitioner. Here, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had requested the Tribunal that, since, certain papers were not available with it, the respondent be directed to produce the same and the Tribunal may consider the same as secondary evidence, but, despite that the respondent did not produce any document. The tribunal also failed to take into account the fact that the respondent had produced the statement of claim after a considerable period of time. Nevertheless, the fact remains that on account of the said accident 36 passengers including the conductor of the bus sustained injuries and that the damage was caused to the bus to the extent of RS.22,024.28/-. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the tribunal committed an error by passing the impugned judgment and award and ought to have imposed some punishment looking to the past record of the respondent. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the ends of the justice would be met if the respondent is imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect.