Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Admit. Mr. Rathod waives service of notice for admission on behalf of respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the appeal is finally heard. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1798 of 2007; whereby, the learned Single Judge maintained the reinstatement with continuity in service but has additionally imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect. 3. We have heard Mr. Raval for the appellant and Mr. Rathod for the respondent for final disposal. 4. As such, the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as before the learned Single Judge, the award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement without back wages but with the continuity in service was under challenge in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the subject matter of the petition was whether the award passed by the Labour Court was legal and valid or not. The perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that the Departmental Inquiry was held for alleged misappropriation on the ground that the fare was collected but the tickets were not issued by the respondent – workman. The punishment was imposed upon the workman for dismissal from service. The dispute was raised by the workman under the I.D. Act and the said dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference No. 167 of 2004. The Labour Court after considering the evidence of inquiry found that the charges were not proved and therefore, ultimately, found that the dismissal was not proper and therefore, the Labour Court directed for reinstatement without back wages. The said award which was under challenge in the Special Civil Application. 5. The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions of both the sides, has recorded finding and the ultimate order at Paras-5 and 6 which reads as under: “5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Considering the evidence on record, the view taken by the Labour Court is just and proper. In the past, the respondent has committed three defaults. In that view of the matter, in my view, the ends of justice will meet if punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect is imposed on the workman. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the view taken by the Labour Court is just and proper. In the past, the respondent has committed three defaults. In that view of the matter, in my view, the ends of justice will meet if punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect is imposed on the workman. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed partly. The order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service is upheld. Keeping in mind the past three defaults committed by the workman, penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect is imposed on the workman. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Reinstatement order will be passed within one month and the penalty order will be implemented within seven months from today”. 6. The aforesaid shows that on the one hand, it is found that the view taken by the Labour Court is just and proper, whereas, on the other hand, it is observed that the punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect is required to be imposed upon the workman. 7. The aforesaid both the findings, in our view, are self contradictory to each other inasmuch as before the Labour Court, the charges were not found to be true and therefore, the order of reinstatement was ordered. If the judicial scrutiny is undertaken and it is found by the High Court that the charges were not proved, naturally, there will not be any question of imposition of punishment and therefore, the order of reinstatement could be maintained. At the same time, if the charges are found to be true, it was the case of misappropriation and therefore, unless the Court exercises the power under Section 11-A on the premise that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved, it could not be substituted by the imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment by substituting the punishment of dismissal from service. In our considered view, the matter has not been examined in the manner as it was required to be examined while undertaking judicial scrutiny in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution arising from the award passed by the Labour Court. 8. In our considered view, the matter has not been examined in the manner as it was required to be examined while undertaking judicial scrutiny in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution arising from the award passed by the Labour Court. 8. Further, the direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to reinstate the workman within a one month and to implement the penalty order within 7 months from today. The aforesaid exercise of the power could be said only available under Article 226 of the Constitution and not under Article 227. Therefore, it appears to us that as the power is exercised by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 as well as under Article 226, Letters Patent Appeal could be maintained. 9. As the main subject matter of the petition has not been decided keeping in view the aforesaid legal position for imposition of the punishment, it would be just and proper to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for hearing. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has also no objection if the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh hearing in accordance with law. Hence, we find that no further discussion is required to be made. 10. It was submitted by Mr. Rathod that this Court may direct for compliance of provisions of Section 17-B of I.D. Act until the matter is finally decided by learned Single Judge afresh. In our view, as the special civil application is to be heard on merits, respondent may file appropriate application for compliance of section 17-B of the I.D. Act, if otherwise, permissible in accordance with law. 11. In view of the aforesaid observation, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside with the further direction that main Special Civil Application No. 1798 of 2007 shall remain restored before the learned Single Judge. The matter shall be examined in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Civil Application No. 5231 of 2013 In view of the order passed in appeal, this Civil Application would not survive and shall stand disposed of accordingly.