IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1549 of 2000 Date of decision: 07.08.2009 Banarsi Lal …Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others. .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Ramesh Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the award directing dismissal of a Bus Conductor who was alleged to have collected money from passengers but not issued tickets. The enquiry that was conducted subsequent to a charge-sheet issued, obtained evidence of the ticket Inspector, but the conductor did not participate in the proceedings despite notice. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty and the disciplinary authority visited him with a punishment of removal. 2. The conductor sought for a reference nearly five years after the order of termination, but the Labour Court held that if there was laches, it shall not be put against him for the statute itself did not provide for any limitation period for seeking a reference and the case deserved consideration on merits. The Labour Court found the enquiry to have Civil Writ Petition No.1549 of 2000 - 2 - been fair and proper. The grounds urged by the workman were that the passengers had not been examined, that he had not known really the exact fare on account of recent increase in the fares announced by the Government and therefore he had not issued tickets and that further all the checking staff were not examined and only one person had been examined. The workman also wanted to contend through counsel by reference to several authorities that the punishment of removal was extraordinary and having regard to the fact that he had 19 years of blemishless service, a lesser punishment could be awarded. The Labour Court reasoned that the embezzlement had been clearly proved and it was the nature of misconduct that was material and not the amount that was involved. 3. The learned Senior counsel Shri H.S.Gill, appearing for the workman, pleads with passion that the punishment of dismissal from service to a person who had put in 19 years was grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. According to him, even apart from the amount involved which was merely 10 rupees, there was really a genuine doubt about the actual fare to be collected in view of the recent change in fares announced by the Government and therefore, when there was no past record of any misconduct, he ought not to have been dismissed from service. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, refers to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Versus Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors.-JT 2000 (3) SC 173, that dealt with the case of issuance of ticket Civil Writ Petition No.1549 of 2000 - 3 - for Rs.1.50 paise instead of Rs.1.80 paise. The case of dismissal was found to be disproportionate. In the decision in The Director State Transport Punjab and others Versus Dilbag Singh, Conductor and others-2003(2) SLR 687, a learned Judge of this Court held that for a report of fraud of Rs.4.50 paise and misbehavior with the checking staff, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was found to be very severe. In that case, the learned Judge dealt with the case of an intervention from Lok Adalat where the department had conceded for stoppage of three increments but later resiled. The real misconduct was collection of less fare from nine lady passengers causing a loss of Rs.4.50 paise. In Ram Phal (Ex-Conductor) Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar and others-1997(2) SLR 790, a Hon'ble Judge of this Court found that an embezzlement of Rs.5.40 paise was very small and negligible and for this fatal punishment of dismissal was too harsh. 5. With the scourge of corruption sweeping the length and breadth of the country, the Courts do need to take a moralist stand. It shall be inappropriate to assign to the offence of corruption a measure of what is acceptable or what is pardonable. The thought and the action that follows it signal a malady and we will have sounded a wrong approach if must examine acts of corruption in relation to the amounts involved. Even as we hear cases of corruption running to crores of rupees in public life, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been leading a trail of strict regimen in matters relating to embezzlement or corruption. The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the State, Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil Writ Petition No.1549 of 2000 - 4 - reported in Uttaranchal Pradesh Corporation Versus Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal-(2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 129 , that the misconduct of a conductor not keeping correct amounts by not feeding the details in the pay bill sheets is not an incident when a Court shall invoke its discretionary power under Section 11-A to remit the punishment of dismissal from service to stoppage of his annual increments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found fault with the order of the Labour Court and the High Court as being insensitive to the seriousness of the charge levied and held that the Courts were not justified in holding that the punishment of removal for such types of misconduct was disproportionate. Even the above decision refers to the consistent approach of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters relating to the misconduct of conductors in Road Transport Corporations where the amounts involved had always been taken as irrelevant and the proof of misconduct itself as being test for determining whether a particular person deserves the punishment of dismissal or not. Under the circumstances, I offer myself no latitude of discretion to swing in favour of the conductor. It could have been a matter of a minute's indiscretion in an unblemished carrier of 19 years but gigantic errors committed in a trial can not always be rolled back and the consequences cannot be different. 6. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 07.08.2009 sanjeev