IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 1509 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 7, 2008 LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, ETC. ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAM PARKASH .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AK Sharma, Sr.DAG, Punjab, for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, and others (defendants) against Ram Parkash (plaintiff). Respondent-plaintiff Ram Parkash filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 17.9.1985, vide which his services had been terminated, was illegal. The challenge was to the departmental proceedings initiated against the plaintiff. The defendants resisted the suit while stating that the plaintiff was charge-sheeted for remaining absent from duty and misappropriation of RSA 4571 of 2004 2 government money. A regular inquiry was held whereupon the charges were proved. The plaintiff was removed from service, after following the due procedure established by law. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the suit was dismissed after considering the entire record. The order of removal was upheld by the trial Court. The first appellate Court, however, has not only erred in facts in partly reversing the judgment of the trial Court, but has travelled beyond jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment in so much as the penalty of dismissal has been converted to stoppage of four increments with future postponement. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others v. Surjit Singh Conductor, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 112. Learned counsel has also referred to the record to show that the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court (para-9) is based on an assumption that the Punishing Authority had disagreed with the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer regarding embezzlement charges and no reason for disagreement had been furnished by the Punishing Authority. A perusal of the impugned order from the lower Court record shows that the Punishing Authority i.e. the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, after noticing the facts that the plaintiff had been given opportunity of being heard before the Inquiry Officer and even thereafter, has held that the plaintiff was transferred to Amritsar on 20.5.1983. He defied the RSA 4571 of 2004 3 orders and had not joined duty there. At a subsequent date, he was transferred to Batala, where he reported for duty on 4.7.1984 i.e. after more than one year. The absence for one year was nothing but indiscipline and defiance. The version of the plaintiff that he could not join duty at Amritsar for fear of his life in view of a threat having been given was not established as the person who had threatened the plaintiff was not even named. The matter was not reported to the police. On the other issue of misappropriation, the Labour Commissioner had agreed with the Inquiry Officer that the charge of misplacing record and T.A. Bill and misappropriation of Rs.350.20 could not be established by the prosecution. The other two charges of misappropriation of the amounts payable to M/s Raghunath and Sons and M/s Himachal Manufacturers Traders, Hoshiarpur, were held by the Inquiry Officer as proved. The Punishing Authority had agreed with the said findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is, therefore, clear that the finding of the first appellate Court is wrongly based on the assumption that the Punishing Authority had disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Other than the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surjit Singh's case (supra) has held that once the charges had been proved, it is settled law that disciplinary authority is empowered to impose appropriate punishment. The civil Court has no jurisdiction to substitute the punishment imposed by the the disciplinary authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, in RSA 4571 of 2004 4 particular, the nature of charges, viz. absence from duty without sanctioned leave for more than one year and misappropriation of funds, I find the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court to be untenable in law and the same is hereby set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are affirmed. The suit stands dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. May 7, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) JUDGE