CWP No. 13341 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13341 of 2008 Date of decision October 26, 2009 Lakhi Ram ....... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. P. Vig, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the rejection of reference sought at the instance of the workman for dismissal from service. The petitioner had been appointed as a driver in the respondent's Corporation and on 8.2.2002 involved a vehicle he was driving in an accident. The departmental enquiry was constituted after a charge sheet had been given to him stating that the accident took place by his negligence and the aggravating factor was that the driver had not returned immediately at 5.00 P.M. as ordered by the Superior Officer but he took the vehicle belatedly and the accident took place at around 7.30 P.M. Opportunity had been granted before the enquiry officer to participate in the enquiry and the misconduct attributed to the workman has been found CWP No. 13341 of 2008 2 established. The report of the enquiry officer had been served on the workman to show cause against the proposed action from dismissal of service. The workman had given his explanation and the disciplinary authority ultimately passed an order dismissing him from service on 24.2.2004. The workman had preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors and the same was disposed on 8.7.2005. While disposing of the appeal, the Appellate Authority had also found that even as regards the past conduct it had never remained satisfactory as he has been charge sheeted earlier also for putting political pressure in the matter of transfer and for not complying with the orders issued from Head Office. 2. Before the Labour Court nothing was elicited beyond stating that he was not found to be in a drunken state as was referred to in the FIR and that he had not been negligent. The proof of misconduct was not merely an accident but also the fact that he had been insubordinate to his superior officer. In the matter of punishment the Court's interference is restricted only to examine that whether the punishment is grossly disproportionate and capricious in nature. For misconduct attributed to the workman namely of insubordination and for causing an accident due to negligence, the Management had decided to terminate the services. Nothing can be seen as capricious or excessive for Court's interference. The award of the Labour Court is fully justified and there is no scope for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 26, 2009 archana