JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, is before this court challenging the award dated 31.7.2015 delivered by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No. 11 of 2006 whereby the penal order as substituted in two departmental appellate jurisdiction has been further substituted by penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect and the direction came to be issued to the petitioner to pay differential amount. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel from the rival sides this court has perused the impugned judgment and award as also other material relied upon by the respective learned counsel. 3. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this court may reiterate the well settled proposition of law in regard to the authority possessed by the disciplinary authorities in holding inquiries and the extent and scope of interference by judicial or quasi judicial forums under Labour Laws in the punishments other than the cessation of employment. It is settled legal position that it is absolute discretion of the disciplinary authority to deal with its subjects in case it finds its employees mis-conducting themselves. No fetters can be laid on the power of the disciplinary authority in this regard. It is also a settled legal position that it is for the disciplinary authority to select appropriate punishment on finding its employee guilty of misconduct, as may be permissible under the law and the judicial or quasi judicial forums cannot substitute the punishment except where the punishment is found to be so disproportionate to the misconduct that it shocks its conscience. Similarly, except as indicated in section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the judicial forums or quasi judicial authorities cannot sit in appeal over the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority; adequacy of the material relied upon also cannot be gone into by judicial or quasi judicial forums. The judicial or quasi judicial forums would also not interfere when concurrent finding of facts supported by acceptable evidence is rendered. It is also settled legal position that interference in the inquiry/punishment would be inevitable where the inquiry is shown to be illegal or in breach of principle of natural justice or suffers from inherent procedural lapses detriment to the interest of the delinquent or being perverse or lacking evidence or absence of the authority to hold disciplinary inquiry etc. This list is not exhaustive and only illustrative. 4. This list is not exhaustive and only illustrative. 4. There may be cases where the disciplinary authority may not have the material at all for holding inquiry or it may have the material pointing to the innocence of the delinquent rather than his guilt. The question is whether in such cases the disciplinary authority can claim above referred protections or immunity against its action, if the inquiry is held in absence of material justifying the inquiry. Can the inquiry be impeached on the ground that the authority had no material to justify its initiation? This question is required to be answered in the light of the facts of this case. 5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it appears that respondent No. 1 workman was employed as driver with the petitioner. On 8.6.1997 while on duty driving the State Transport Corporation Bus (“S.T. Bus” for short), he was passing through Gota junction, S.G. Highway. As the facts of the case unfold in the report submitted to the petitioner; at that point of time the truck had come from the wrong side at an excessive speed. The fact that the truck was on the wrong side is borne out from the report of the petitioner produced at Exh. 13 in the proceedings before the court below and it is not the case of the petitioner that the truck had not come from the wrong side. Statement of one of the passengers travelling in the S.T. bus produced at Exh. 18 in the Tribunal revealed that at Bagra club, Gota, S.G. Highway, a truck had come at excessive speed in a negligent manner and the S.T. bus driver moved his vehicle towards left of the road to avoid the accident but the truck driver collided his truck on the driver’s side of the S.T. bus with excessive speed causing substantial damage to the S.T. bus which was blown into a ditch on the left side of the road. Be it noted that this version of the accident had come from the mouth of the independent person. The respondent workman also reiterated almost similar story in his statement during the inquiry. He explained that he had moved the S.T. bus towards his left and the accident was caused by the truckist. The version of the respondent workman thus received a complete corroboration from the independent passenger. The respondent workman also reiterated almost similar story in his statement during the inquiry. He explained that he had moved the S.T. bus towards his left and the accident was caused by the truckist. The version of the respondent workman thus received a complete corroboration from the independent passenger. As against this, the report of the Divisional Manager or Depot Manager was given weightage by the disciplinary authority; wherein they stated that drivers of both the sides were negligent. The contention is that the senior Depot Manager had visited the site and thereafter had arrived at the said conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to submit as to how the version of the two officers who were not even present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time outweighed the other competing version on record. Whereas version of the two officers was a mere bald assertion, the other version detailed hereinabove was a weighty version supported by independent material. 6. The purpose of departmental inquiry is to fix the responsibility of the erring delinquent. If the rules and regulations contemplate show cause notice, charge sheet and other procedure to be followed, it goes without saying that the disciplinary authority should be able to show the tangible cogent material on which it proposes to rest the charge against the delinquent. Obviously, therefore, in absence of such material departmental inquiry would not be justified. Similarly, if there are two versions; one justifying dissuading from the departmental inquiry and the other a mere bald version, the disciplinary authority would not be justified in persuading itself to hold the departmental inquiry while ignoring the contrary weighty version. In absence of justification to hold the departmental inquiry, the initiation of the departmental inquiry itself would be vulnerable to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. As pointed out in detail only material for initiation of the departmental inquiry in the instant case were the bald statements of Depot Manager/Divisional Manager that “both the drivers were negligent”; without there being any prima facie material justifying such claim. Such a claim was contrary to weighty version as indicated in paragraph 5 above justifying dissuasion from holding the inquiry. It has been strenuously reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that six passengers lost their life and 11 passengers were injured in the accident. Such a claim was contrary to weighty version as indicated in paragraph 5 above justifying dissuasion from holding the inquiry. It has been strenuously reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that six passengers lost their life and 11 passengers were injured in the accident. It appears that the disciplinary authority was swayed away by the said sole fact without analyzing the other relevant facts objectively before deciding to hold inquiry against the respondent workman. While such facts may induce sympathy for those dead or injured, law has to take its own course and cannot rest on such sympathies. A wrong might have happened but for punishing the wrong doer, there must be material against him. 8. In above set of circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and award wherein the Industrial Tribunal has found that the charges against the respondent workman were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal, however, expressed the view that the respondent workman was negligent in discharging of his duties. As this court is concerned only with the petition filed by the employer and not the workman, it is deemed appropriate to leave the said aspect there without expressing any opinion. 9. In the above set of circumstances, this court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. The petition must, therefore, fail and is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.