IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1203 of 1996 Reserved on: November 7, 2006. Decided on : November 15, 2006 Puran Dass …..Petitioner. VERSUS State Bank of Patiala and another …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Mohinder Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No.2 and none for respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, Judge The Writ Petitioner has sought the quashing of award, dated 23.4.1993, Annexure P-1, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Judicial Complex, Second Floor, Sector-17, Chandigarh, whereby punishment of stoppage of seven increments, with cumulative effect, has been substituted for the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the Writ petitioner by his Disciplinary Authority, i.e. respondent No.2, besides seeking certain other reliefs. 2. Writ Petitioner, while working as Peon-cum- Chowkidar on the establishment of State Bank of Patiala, was placed under suspension in the year 1984 and was chargesheeted for committing three acts of misconduct, namely Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… he had accepted Rs.300/- from one Barfi Devi, a customer of the respondent-Bank, with instructions to deposit the same in her (Barfi Devi’s) account but did not deposit the said amount of money in her account and instead misappropriated the same, he accepted money from various customers for being deposited into their respective accounts but did not deposit the said amounts of money nor did he refund those amounts to the customers and, third, he remained wilfully absent from duty. Regular enquiry was conducted. He was found guilty of all the charges in the course of the enquiry and thereafter major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. He approached the Central Government, which made reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide order dated 8.4.1988. Before the Tribunal, the representative of the petitioner did not challenge the merits of the case but only submitted for intervention by it (the Tribunal) in the punishment awarded, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal, after noticing the various submissions made by the representative of the petitioner, ordered that instead of dismissal the petitioner be awarded punishment of stoppage of seven increments and be reinstated within four weeks from the publication of the award. The petitioner was held to be not entitled to back wages. 3. Writ Petitioner’s case is that he was not reinstated immediately, in terms of the award of the Tribunal, but was reinstated on 15.11.1994, vide order dated 8.11.1994, though with retrospective effect from 1.8.1993. His further contention is that on …3… reinstatement he was not posted at the place where he was working at the time of his suspension, i.e. village Khaltoo in District Solan, but at a distant place, named Loharghat, which is at a distance of 123 kms. from his village. He says that his father is 75 years of age, who remains sick and has weak eye-sight, and his mother is having vision only in one eye and in spite of his having made representation to the respondents that he be posted near his village, because of the aforesaid condition of his parents, he has been posted at a very far off place. It is also his grievance that he should be paid wages for the entire period he remained under suspension. Further, his contention is that when no serious charge stood proved against him in the course of the enquiry, he could be said to have committed, at the most, a minor act of misconduct of wilful absence from duty, for which punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period not exceeding six months is the maximum penalty, as per service conditions of Bank employees, extract Annexure P-3. 4. Respondents have denied the allegations that there was any delay in reinstating the Writ Petitioner or that his posting at a distant place is malafide. They have stated that the penalty has been imposed, in terms of the award of the Tribunal, and that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to any arrears, on account of back wages, as per award Annexure P-1. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. …4… 6. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner drew my attention to the following portion of the award (Annexure P-1) of the Tribunal and submitted that the charge of acceptance of Rs.300/- by the petitioner from Barfi Devi, an account holder, was not proved and other charges had also not been proved and so he could, at the most, be stated to have committed a minor act of misconduct of wilful absence from duty for a few days. “Representative appearing on behalf of the workman has not contested this case on merits and has only prayed for the intervention of this court with regard to the punishment under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. In this connection he has pointed out that to remain on leave on unauthorized manner and taking loans for personal use are not gross misconduct and does not attract the punishment of dismissal. He has also pointed out that only charge of Rs.300/- reliang to Barfi Devi being amount not deposited in the account has also supported the case of the petitioner, while appearing as WW-2 stating that she had not given Rs.300-/- to the petitioner for making the deposit in the bank. He has also pointed out that amount is to meagre to attract the said heavy punishment in support of his arguments he has also stated that this is the solitary incident. He has also stated that he has put in 6/7 years of service.” 7. A bare reading of the above reproduced portion of the award of the tribunal shows that the representative of the workman made submission that the charge regarding acceptance of Rs.300/- by the Writ Petitioner from Barfi Devi and not accounting for the said amount was not proved. The Tribunal did not give any finding, as is clear from the subsequent part of the award, Annexure P-1, with regard to the submissions of the representative of the Writ Petitioner, appearing in the above reproduced portion of the award. Rather, in the subsequent two paras the Tribunal observed that the incident pertained to the year …5… 1982 while the petitioner was dismissed from service in September, 1986 and that he had already suffered agony of facing departmental proceedings and a long trial and so this was a fit case where justice needed to be tampered with mercy and the petitioner deserved to be given an opportunity to reform himself. Therefore, the contention that this is a case of minor misconduct cannot be accepted. 8. No submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the hearing of the matter, with regard to the prayer for posting the petitioner at a place near to his house. 9. The Tribunal has ordered that back wages are not to be paid to the Writ Petitioner. The punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority has been interfered with by the Tribunal not on account of having found anything in favour of the Writ Petitioner on merits but solely on account of the Writ Petitioner’s mercy plea. 10. As a result of the above stated position, writ petition is dismissed. November 15, 2006(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.