Registry of Rs 6: the legal battle of 18 years of the bus driver is in vain | Ahmedabad News
Ahmedabad: GSRTC bus driver fought a legal battle for 18 years without any gain after the department stopped its increase for six months as punishment for not issuing a ticket to a passenger even after charging him 6 Rs for the tariff. Gujarat’s high court last week overturned a court order to quash his sentence, saying charging for tickets and not issuing a ticket was not an act of not just misconduct, But Corruption.
The case concerned Rameshbhai Kodinariya, who was a driver of a bus on the Jamnagar-Kalawad-Dhoraji road. On August 5, 2003, during a trip, it was found that Kodinariya had collected Rs 6 from a passenger but had not issued a ticket to him. An investigation has taken place. The conductor was found guilty of irregularity and was punished by the ministry with a stoppage of his increase for six months with permanent effect.
Kodinariya moved the labor court against the sanction but did not question the outcome of the investigation. In August 2014, the court overturned the sanction order and ordered the ministry to fix the salary after considering the notional salary during the period in question and pay him all consequential benefits. The court even canceled the investigation.
Rajkot’s divisional director approached the High Court against the court’s decision and said the court had quashed the investigation, although the conductor did not challenge the investigation process and its outcome. The ministry cited the Supreme Court’s service observation that a court cannot weigh the amount of punishment in a golden balance. When the investigation was legal, the court cannot intervene on the aspect of the sanction.
After hearing the case, Judge AP Thaker observed: “… the conductor enjoys a position of trust and acts as a trustee of the Company and it is his duty to protect the interests of the Society. The act of the driver of not issuing the tickets after receiving the amount from the passenger is not only an act of misconduct, but it is corruption. ”
The HC overturned the court’s decision to overturn Kodinariya’s sentence and said the court was concerned about the merits of the department’s investigation was beyond the court’s scope because the driver did not have it. at all disputed.
The case concerned Rameshbhai Kodinariya, who was a driver of a bus on the Jamnagar-Kalawad-Dhoraji road. On August 5, 2003, during a trip, it was found that Kodinariya had collected Rs 6 from a passenger but had not issued a ticket to him. An investigation has taken place. The conductor was found guilty of irregularity and was punished by the ministry with a stoppage of his increase for six months with permanent effect.
Kodinariya moved the labor court against the sanction but did not question the outcome of the investigation. In August 2014, the court overturned the sanction order and ordered the ministry to fix the salary after considering the notional salary during the period in question and pay him all consequential benefits. The court even canceled the investigation.
Rajkot’s divisional director approached the High Court against the court’s decision and said the court had quashed the investigation, although the conductor did not challenge the investigation process and its outcome. The ministry cited the Supreme Court’s service observation that a court cannot weigh the amount of punishment in a golden balance. When the investigation was legal, the court cannot intervene on the aspect of the sanction.
After hearing the case, Judge AP Thaker observed: “… the conductor enjoys a position of trust and acts as a trustee of the Company and it is his duty to protect the interests of the Society. The act of the driver of not issuing the tickets after receiving the amount from the passenger is not only an act of misconduct, but it is corruption. ”
The HC overturned the court’s decision to overturn Kodinariya’s sentence and said the court was concerned about the merits of the department’s investigation was beyond the court’s scope because the driver did not have it. at all disputed.
