JUDGMENT :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.M. Dagli for the petitioner and Mr. I.S. Supehia for the workman.

2. By filing of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in Approval Application No. 203 of 2003 in Reference (IT) No. 37 of 2000 in order dated 17.11.2003 below Exh. 22 with a further prayer to allow the application as prayed for.

3. According to the corporation, the respondent was an employee working as a conductor. On 22.8.2000, respondent was on duty on the route from Gandhinagar to Juna Kandla and the bus was checked by the line checking staff wherein it was found that from 7 1/2 passengers of different group from New Kandla to Port Colony and from 4 1/2 passengers of different group going from new Kandla to Thermal, an amount of Rs.29.00 at the rate of Rs.2.50 were recovered towards fare but the tickets were not issued to them upto the point of checking and way bill was not closed. At the time of checking, four passengers in the bus were having tickets and 11 1/2 passengers were not given tickets though amount of fare was recovered from them. In respect of the said charge, departmental inquiry was held against the conductor while following the principles of natural justice and thereafter by order dated 31.7.2001, it was ordered that an amount of Rs.500.00 be recovered as administrative expenditure by two equal installments. Thereafter, reviewing authority issued show cause notice to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed. According to the petitioner, amount of Rs.500.00 recovered from the workman by two equal installments was ordered to be refunded. Reviewing authority has, after hearing the respondent, found that the order of punishment passed by the competent authority is liable to be quashed and, thereafter, order of dismissal was passed imposing punishment of dismissal. Corporation has filed Approval Application No. 203 of 2003 under section 33-2-(b) of the ID Act, 1947 which was rejected by the tribunal on the ground that it amounts to imposing double punishment and the corporation has no power to enhance the punishment under the Discipline and Appeal Procedure Clause 9 and 20 and, therefore, in this petition, petitioner is challenging that order of the tribunal in Approval Application No. 203 of 2003. Question of Reference being No.1 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 888 of 2004 has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.10.2007 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has answered the question referred to that the reviewing authority, as an appellate authority, has power to call for the papers of any case for review and these powers would include the powers to enhance the punishment in case if it is found to be inadequate.

4. I have perused the review show cause notice as well as the order in review passed by the reviewing authority. Review show cause notice is at page 21 wherein the reviewing authority has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the competent authority for the misconduct is inadequate or disproportionate and, therefore, review show cause notice was issued while considering the past record as to why respondent should not be dismissed from service. Reviewing authority has not come to the independent conclusion that the competent authority is wrong in imposing punishment on the workman. Reviewing authority has not discussed finding given by the competent authority but simply on the ground that the punishment imposed by the competent authority is disproportionate or inadequate and, therefore, review show cause notice was issued for enhancement thereof. Review show cause notice is dated 31st December, 2001. Respondent was personally heard on 10.4.2003. Thereafter, finding has been given by the reviewing authority. Reviewing authority has come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the workman is proved and the workman ha