IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14359 of 1992. Date of Decision : February 03, 2010. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Depot No. 1, Amritsar ...... Petitioner. Versus. Workman Sh. Jasmer Singh Conductor No. 183 o/o Gneral Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The challenge in this writ petition preferred by the petitioner/Management (for short “the Management”) is to the Award dated 17.02.1992 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab (for short “the Tribunal”). Counsel for the Management submits that the Award dated 17.02.1992 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Tribunal, is not sustainable as the findings, recorded by the Tribunal, are not in accordance with the evidence, which was led before it by the parties. She submits that various punishments were imposed on the respondent No. 1/Workman for different mis-conducts, which he had committed during his service career with the Management as a Conductor. Due process of law was followed by imposing the said punishments, therefore, no interference was called for by the Tribunal, in the matter. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1/workman submits that the contention of counsel for the Management that various C.W.P. No. 14359 of 1992. -2- punishments imposed in accordance with law cannot be sustained as the basic principle of natural justice was violated. He contends that except the punishment imposed by the Management, vide order dated 04.12.1973, whereby four increments of the respondent No. 1/workman were stopped with cumulative effect, which punishment was imposed after holding a regular departmental inquiry and other punishments, i.e., vide order dated 12.06.1974, whereby four increments of the respondent No. 1/workman were stopped with cumulative effect, vide order dated 01.07.1974, whereby one increment of the respondent No. 1/workman was stopped with cumulative effect, vide order dated 30.03.1974, whereby one increment of the respondent No. 1/workman was stopped with cumulative effect, vide order dated 12.06.1975, whereby five increments of the respondent No. 1/workman were stopped with cumulative effect, vide order dated 28.01.1975, whereby one increment of the respondent No. 1/workman was stopped with cumulative effect, vide order dated 28.01.1975, whereby one increment of the respondent No. 1/workman was stopped with cumulative effect, vide order dated 25.02.1976, whereby one increment of the respondent No. 1/workman was stopped with cumulative effect, vide order dated 27.01.1987, whereby two increments of the respondent No. 1/workman were stopped without cumulative effect, vide order dated 15.11.1988, whereby two increments of the respondent No. 1/workman were stopped with cumulative effect, and vide order dated 15.11.1988 , whereby one increment of the respondent No. 1/workman was stopped with cumulative effect, were without holding a regular departmental inquiry, which was in total violation of the statutory Rules as well, which mandate holding of a departmental inquiry. That apart order dated 27.01.1987, whereby two increments of the respondent No. 1/workman were stopped without cumulative effect, the C.W.P. No. 14359 of 1992. -3- said punishment was imposed by an order, which was totally non-speaking order as has been held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had on the basis of evidence led by the parties, come to a conclusion that there was non application of mind by the Punishing Authority as the same had been passed on printed proforma, wherein not even a mis-conduct committed by the respondent No. 2/workman was mentioned. He on this basis supports the Award passed by the Tribunal. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is a settled proposition of law that if a major penalty is to be imposed, a departmental inquiry in accordance with Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, which was applicable to the case of respondent No. 1/workman, was required to be complied with. No departmental inquiry with regard to the punishments imposed by the Management on the respondent No. 1/workman, vide orders dated 12.06.1974, 01.07.1974, 30.03.1974, 12.06.1975, 28.01.1975, 28.01.1975, 25.02.1976, 15.11.1988, and 15.11.1988, was held. In all these punishments, increments were stopped with cumulative effect. It is not in dispute that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment. That being the position, the findings as recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, with regard to abovementioned orders, are fully justified and in accordance with law. As regards order dated 27.01.1987, whereby two increments were stopped without cumulative effect, suffice it to say that any order imposing punishment need to be a speaking order and the reasons should be clearly specified for imposing such a punishment. That having not been done, the order of punishment dated 27.01.1987 had rightly been set aside by the C.W.P. No. 14359 of 1992. -4- Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, vide its award. It would not be out of way to mention here that order dated 04.12.1973, whereby four increments were stopped with cumulative effect stands upheld for the reason that a regular departmental inquiry was held against respondent No. 1/workman before imposing the said punishment and, therefore, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court as there is no illegality in the same. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 03, 2010. sjks.