JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such they arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8872/2007 to 8874/2007, all these Letters Patent Appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. That the workman of the respondent-Union of Special Civil Application No.8872 of 2007 was working in the regular employment of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) in the Sanitary Department as Safar Sevak being Driver and other two workmen of Special Civil Application No. 8873 of 2007 and Special Civil Application No. 8874 of 2007 were working as Safai Kamdars. 2.1. That all the workmen were working with Sanitary Department on 26.05.1998. The Vigilance Officer of the Corporation visited the respondent workmen. It was noticed by him that respondent driver and other two, who were working with him as Assistants, were not found on duty and vehicle tanker of the Corporation, which was meant for removing wastage from the drainage in different parts of the city, was also not found. All the three workmen were suspended on 01.06.1998. Subsequently, departmental proceedings had been initiated against all the three. 2.2. Charges were framed against the concerned workmen. It was alleged that the concerned workman driver, in collusion with other two workmen, had taken away the vehicle tanker outside the city limits for their personal monetary benefits. The vehicle tanker was found near Krishnanagar. Therefore, order of suspension came to be passed, after availing opportunities to these employees. Their departmental inquiry came to be culminated into proving them guilty of the charges and the punishment awarded was of stoppage of two increments without future effect. 2.3. The concerned workmen challenged the same before the learned Tribunal as the References were made before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Vadodara under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”). 2.4. The statement of claim was filed by the concerned workmen. The punishment of stoppage of two increments, without future effect, was imposed. The written statement was filed by the Corporation. The learned Tribunal availed opportunities to both the sides and, eventually, upheld the version of the concerned workmen. 2.4. The statement of claim was filed by the concerned workmen. The punishment of stoppage of two increments, without future effect, was imposed. The written statement was filed by the Corporation. The learned Tribunal availed opportunities to both the sides and, eventually, upheld the version of the concerned workmen. The punishment awarded to all the three employees had been quashed and set aside vide order dated 31.08.2006. 2.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the order of punishment/penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of stoppage of two increments without future effect, the appellant herein – Corporation preferred present Special Civil Application Nos. 8872/2007 to 8874/2007 before the learned Single Judge. That by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the Special Civil Applications confirming the respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the order of punishment/penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2.6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.8872/2007 to 8874/2007, the Corporation – original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Shri Pandya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – Corporation has reiterated what was submitted before the learned Single Judge. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Pandya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – Corporation that when it was found by the Disciplinary Authority that the concerned workmen misused the vehicle and used the vehicle for their own purpose and went out of the city of Vadodara, the learned Tribunal materially erred in interfering with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority of imposing the penalty of holding two increments and that too without future effect. No other submissions have been made. 4. Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has given the specific finding that it is not established and proved by leading cogent evidence that the concerned workmen committed misconduct and/or used the vehicle of the Corporation for their own purpose. At the outset it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has given the specific finding that it is not established and proved by leading cogent evidence that the concerned workmen committed misconduct and/or used the vehicle of the Corporation for their own purpose. The learned Tribunal accepted the case on behalf of the workmen that as it was a septic tanker which was needed to be emptied outside the city limits containing fecal material and sewage. Therefore, after collecting the sewage from and around the society it was taken to Indiranagar, outside the limit of Corporation for emptying the sewage material. Therefore, the learned Tribunal concluded that the charges had not been proved of their having taken the vehicle for their personal financial gains. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal confirmed by the learned Single Judge are on appreciation of evidence which are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. In fact we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge on the finding that the charges have not been proved of their having taken the vehicle for their personal financial gains. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the learned Tribunal set aside the punishment/penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of stoppage of two increments without future effect and when the same has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge by passing a detailed judgment and order, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these Letters Patent Appeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 1534/2018 to 1536/2018 In view of dismissal of main Letters Patent Appeals, Civil Application Nos.1534/2018 to 1536/2018 also stand dismissed.