P.B. Majmudar, J.

1. xxx xxx xxx. The facts leading to the present petition are as under:-

The respondent was serving at the relevant time as a Driver in the petitioner-Corporation. At the relevant time, while on duty, it was found that he had committed misconduct by not issuing tickets to certain passengers and, ultimately, departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The disciplinary authority imposed penalty of withholding of one yearly increment for five years. However, the said order was taken in review by the reviewing authority and the reviewing authority, after reviewing the order of the Disciplinary Authority, passed an order of removal. After passing the said order, Approval Application was filed by the petitioner-Corporation for giving approval to the decision. However, the said application was rejected by the Conciliation Officer, which has given rise to the present petition.

The Conciliation Officer has rejected the application on the ground that the removal Order was passed on 21-9-2001. while notice pay was given on the next day i.e. 22-9-2001, at the time when he was on duty. Since both the said things had not been done simultaneously, i.e. removal order and the payment of one month's notice, on the said ground, the Conciliation Officer found that there is a breach of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the procedure has not been followed and on that ground, the approval application was rejected. In fact, I am of the opinion that the said reasoning of the Conciliation Officer is absolutely unsustainable. Mr. Dagli for the petitioner has pointed out that, in fact, at the time of passing the removal order and serving the same on the petitioner, the very moment notice pay was also given to the concerned workman. Under these circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, learned Advocates appearing for the contesting parties submitted that instead of sending the matter back to the Conciliation Officer and giving opportunity for raising appropriate dispute, which may take long time for adjudication, this Court may itself decide the question of appropriate punishment, which can be awarded to the respondent-workman since both the sides have left the aforesaid aspect of imposing appropriate penalty to this Court, with a view to cut short the controversy, I have considered the aforesaid aspect of appropriate punishment, which can be awarded to the present respondent.

2. xxx xxx xxx.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the concerned workman will be now subjected to the penalty of withholding of three increments with future effect and he will be allowed to continue in service by way of reinstatement, with continuity of service. Accordingly, the S.T. Corporation is directed to reinstate the respondent within a period of one month from today and as stated above, he will be subjected to withholding of three increments with future effect and, he will not be entitled to any back wages for the entire intervening period.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx.

(BAV)

Rule made absolute.