JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T.) No. 172/2000 by which the learned tribunal has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned appellate authority/reviewing authority to enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. After full fledge departmental inquiry the disciplinary authority held the respondent herein guilty for the misconduct of not issuing the tickets to the passengers and not collecting the fare. The disciplinary authority after giving an opportunity to the delinquent imposed the punishment of withholding two increments for two years with permanent effect. 1.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the delinquent preferred Appeal before the learned appellate authority. The learned appellate authority dismissed the Appeal. However, it was found that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the delinquent, more particularly, considering the earlier past record the learned appellate authority/reviewing authority issued the show cause notice upon the delinquent and the delinquent was called upon to show cause why the punishment of dismissal may not be imposed. Thereafter after giving an opportunity to the delinquent the learned appellate authority/reviewing authority enhanced the punishment to put the delinquent five step below in the pay-scale of Rs. 1218/-. 1.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned appellate authority in enhancing the punishment, the delinquent/workman raised industrial dispute before the learned tribunal, which was numbered as Reference (I.T.) No. 172/2000. By the impugned judgment and award and relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. D.L. Patel 2003 (1) GLR 348 : 2003-IV-LLJ-810 the learned tribunal has allowed the said Reference and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned appellate authority by observing that as held by the learned Single Judge the appellate authority has no authority and/or power to review and/or enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, the petitioner herein-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation preferred the present Special Civil Application. 2. Shri Abhishek A. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. D.L. Patel (supra) has been subsequently set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1090/2004 and it is held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to review the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, which was relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. D.L. Patel (supra) cannot be sustained as the decision upon which reliance has been placed has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. 3. The present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. He has vehemently submitted that as such considering the relevant rules the learned appellate authority cannot be said to be reviewing authority as the reviewing authority shall be the higher authority. It is vehemently submitted that even otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the misconduct which was proved against the delinquent that he did not issue the tickets and even did not recover the fare, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority of withholding two increments for two years was just, proper commenced with the gravity of the misconduct committed, and therefore, it is submitted that even otherwise on merits also the learned appellate authority was not justified in enhancing the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal. At the outset it is required to be noted that after full fledge departmental inquiry the disciplinary authority held the misconduct proved against the delinquent of not issuing the tickets and not recovering the fare. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal. At the outset it is required to be noted that after full fledge departmental inquiry the disciplinary authority held the misconduct proved against the delinquent of not issuing the tickets and not recovering the fare. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments for two years. The delinquent/workman preferred Appeal before the learned appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the said Appeal. However, considering the past record of the workman i.e. there were 52 defaults committed by the workman, the learned appellate authority was of the opinion that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary is not just, and therefore, the delinquent was called upon to show cause whey he may not be dismissed from service and thereafter after giving an opportunity to the delinquent and considering his past record the learned appellate authority enhanced the punishment of withholding/putting the workman five stage below in the basic pay of Rs. 1218/-. The aforesaid was challenged subsequently by raising an industrial dispute before the learned tribunal and by the impugned judgment and award and relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. D.L. Patel (supra) the learned tribunal has allowed the said Reference and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned appellate authority reviewing the punishment. However, it is required to be noted that the very judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge upon which reliance has been placed upon by the learned tribunal has been subsequently set aside by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 11/03/2008 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1090/2004. Under the circumstances, when the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been relied upon by the learned tribunal by passing the impugned judgment and award is no longer good as, as such, the very judgment has been set aside by the Division Bench, the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal cannot be sustained. 4.1. Under the circumstances, when the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been relied upon by the learned tribunal by passing the impugned judgment and award is no longer good as, as such, the very judgment has been set aside by the Division Bench, the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal cannot be sustained. 4.1. Now so far as the order passed by the learned appellate authority on merits is concerned, it is required to be noted that looking to the past record and the misconduct/misconduct committed by the delinquent the learned appellate authority is justified in exercising the punishment to put the workman five stage below in the basic pay of Rs. 1218/-. It is required to be noted that there were 52 defaults committed by the workman in the past and different punishments were imposed. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as such, when the show cause notice was issued by the learned appellate authority it was proposed to dismiss the delinquent, however thereafter after giving an opportunity to the delinquent, the learned appellate authority has enhanced the punishment to put the workman five stages below in the pay-scale of Rs. 1218/-. Under the circumstances also on merits the learned appellate authority was justified in enhancing the punishment. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned appellate authority is required to be restored. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No. 172/2000 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned appellate authority is hereby restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.