LPA No. 354 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 354 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.5.2009 Hari Chand Gautam ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court and rejecting the claim of the appellant for reinstatement. 2. The appellant was employed with the Punjab National Bank. He had already served for 15 years when the incident in question took place. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 30.12.1991 alleging misconduct with the Manager and staff members under the influence of liquor on 23.12.1991. The departmental enquiry was conducted. According to the enquiry report, charge was established. He was given personal hearing wherein he admitted his guilt and prayed for a lenient view. The punishing authority passed the order of dismissal. On the question of punishment, previous record of the workman was also taken into account which included his conviction by the Court. On identical charge, he was let off by giving warning by the court. 3. On a reference to the Tribunal, it was held that a fair and proper LPA No. 354 of 2009 2 enquiry had been conducted and the punishment was proportionate to the proved misconduct. The said finding has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant had already served for 15 years and in such a situation the punishment awarded is dis-proportionate to the misconduct. 6. We are unable to accept this submission. The workman misbehaved under the influence of liquor during office hours. He was also convicted for such behaviour earlier. The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge held that such a gross indiscipline did not call for any lenient view. We find no reason to interfere with the said view. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 8.5.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE