JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-workman against the impugned judgment dated 27.8.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by him has been dismissed and the impugned award of the learned Labour Court dated 5.3.2008 has been upheld. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellant-workman was working with the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation since 06.02.1980 on the post of Booking Conductor. A show cause notice was issued to him on 28.01.1989 by the respondent Corporation for missing of ticket books containing ticket of denomination of more than Rs. 15, total amounting to Rs. 11,200/- from booking office of Makrana on 05.03.1988 where appellant was posted at the time of occurrence. The appellant-workman filed reply to the show cause notice dated 28.01.1989. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the appellant-workman on 16.11.1999 for his involvement in missing of aforesaid ticket books amounting to Rs. 11,200/- from RSRTC Booking Office, Makrana i.e. his place of posting. The appellant-workman filed reply to the charge sheet dated 16.11.1991 stating that he had handed over the charge to Naval Kishore Dadhich after completing his shift on 5.3.1988 and also got his signatures on schedule 22 at Serial No. 516051. Thereafter during duty time of Shri Naval Kishore Dadhich, aforesaid ticket books were found missing from booking office. Naval Kishore Dadhich lodged an FIR and also sent a report to General Manager, RSRTC, Ajmer on 06.03.1988 in which nowhere involvement of the appellant-workman was mentioned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after serving the chargesheet to the appellant-workman as well as to Naval Kishore Dadhich for the occurrence dated 05.03.1988, an inquiry officer was appointed in the matter in a very illegal and unfair manner as for one offence two inquiry officers were appointed separately one for appellant-workman and another for Naval Kishore Dadhich and this unfair act was done only to give undue benefit to Naval Kishore Dadhich, who happens to be the younger brother of the Mahaveer Prasad Dadhich, the then Chief Manager of RSRTC, Ajmer. 4. Learned counsel submitted that contrary to the first inquiry, Shri K.N. Gupta submitted his inquiry report and found the appellant-workman as well as to Shri Naval Kishore Dadhich responsible for incident dated 05.03.1988. 4. Learned counsel submitted that contrary to the first inquiry, Shri K.N. Gupta submitted his inquiry report and found the appellant-workman as well as to Shri Naval Kishore Dadhich responsible for incident dated 05.03.1988. It is contended that the enquiry officer did not provide necessary documents for his defence to the appellant-workman even though he applied for documents under Right to Information Act. The inquiry officer also has not granted adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant-workman and in a mala fide manner, application of the appellant-workman for his representation through departmental representative Shri Suresh Kumar was rejected and appellant was not permitted for engaging departmental representative for his defence in the matter. 5. It is contended that on the basis of illegal unfair inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer Shri K.N. Gupta and only to save Naval Kishore Dadhich, appellant was shown involved in the matter falsely and was punished on the basis of inquiry report with stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 28.04.1995. The appellant workman filed an appeal raising all the grounds and defence placed before inquiry officer and disciplinary authority but departmental appeal of the appellant workman was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.1996 in an arbitrary manner. 6. Learned counsel submits that appellant-workman submitted application before the Conciliation Officer through Deputy Chief Regional, Rajasthan State Road Transport Majdoor Sangh, Ajmer under Industrial Disputes Act, where matter was not compromised and conciliation proceedings failed. The conciliation officer referred the matter to the State Government for further proceedings and the State Government referred the matter to the learned Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the same. 7. Learned counsel submits that the learned Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer passed the award in the matter on 05.03.2008 and set-aside the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect against the appellant-workman and found the inquiry so conducted as unjust and unfair and also against the principle of natural justice for the reason that though chargesheet was issued to both the persons, but one person was punished and another was exonerated. The learned Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Ajmer in its award also gave the finding that in the inquiry report of Shri K.N. Gupta, appellant-workman and Naval Kishore Dadhich both were found guilty for the offence, even then only appellant-workman was punished for the offence while no steps were taken against Naval Kishore Dadhich only on the reason that for his case, another inquiry officer Shri P.N. Vyas was appointed and he exonerated Naval Kishore Dadhich in his inquiry report, which clearly shows that inquiry conducted in the matter was not fair and without properly complying the principle of natural justice. 8. It is contended that against the award dated 05.03.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, the respondent-corporation filed writ petition, but the learned Single Judge without considering the facts aforesaid, allowed the writ petition 27.08.2012 filed by the respondent-corporation and set-aside the award dated 05.03.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer and restored the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority without considering the facts of the case that both appellant Dwarka Prasad and Nawal Kishore Dadhich were facing similar charges and that they were working in the same office as booking clerk at the same window, but instead of appointing common enquiry officer in their case, the management appointed a separate enquiry officer in his case and that it happened because Naval Kishore Dadhich's elder brother i.e. Mahaveer Prasad Dadhich happened to be at that time appointed as Chief Manager at Ajmer Depot. 9. Learned counsel submitted that though the enquiry officer has found both appellant and Nawal Kishore Dadhich jointly responsible for the charges, but while Nawal Kishore Dadhich has been exonerated, the appellant has been unduly penalised by award of penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 10. Shri O.P. Sheoran, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal. It is submitted that the State Government has committed an error by referring the dispute, which was not at all a dispute in the eye of law. The enquiry was conducted after following the due process of law and thereafter the punishment order was passed, which was also considered by the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the respondent-workman. It is submitted that the State Government has committed an error by referring the dispute, which was not at all a dispute in the eye of law. The enquiry was conducted after following the due process of law and thereafter the punishment order was passed, which was also considered by the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the respondent-workman. The dispute was not at all an industrial dispute as per Section 2K of the I.D. Act. Thus the reference has been illegally allowed. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that exoneration of co-employee Nawal Kishore could not have been a ground to exonerate the appellant without holding as to what were the allegations against the two; whether they are shouldering the same responsibility and other related aspects. Moreover the appellant was having 14 charge sheets of the respective punishments to his credit for his act and conduct while imparting his duties with the respondent-Corporation. Thus the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the order of punishment has been passed casually and therefore the impugned award dated 5.3.2008 passed by the Labour Court has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge. The appeal be therefore dismissed. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. Apparently in the opinion of the court, it is a case of discrimination while co-employee Nawal Kishore Dadhich has been exonerated, the appellant has been unduly penalised by award of penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. Despite specific application by the appellant, the disciplinary authority did not direct common enquiry against both the delinquents though both were facing same charges and were, in fact, working at the same window in the same depot. The impugned award thus cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal. 14. The appeal is therefore allowed and the impugned order dated 27.8.2012 is set aside. The reference is answered in the terms that the action of the respondents in withholding the one annual grade increment of the appellant is illegal and the appellant is entitled to all the consequential benefits including interest @ 6% per annum. 15. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.