C.W.P.No.9281 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9281 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 03.03.2009 Prem Chand ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.P.K.Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional AG, Haryana for respondents No.2 and 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, the workman who was a Conductor in Haryana Roadways has challenged award dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P- 8) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding therein that the enquiry proceedings held against him and the subsequent order of punishment passed by the Punishing Authority is in accordance with law. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a charge-sheet dated 16.7.1992 Exhibit M-3 along with the statement of allegations and list of witnesses was served upon the petitioner. This was done for the reason that on 3.9.1992 when the petitioner was on duty as Conductor on Bus No.1945 on Amritsar-Paonta Sahib route, the bus was checked by Sh.Ram Singh, Sub Inspector, Hardwari Lal, Inspector and Niranjan Singh, Sub Inspector, C.W.P.No.9281 of 2008 -2- who were consisting of the checking party at Do-Sadka. On checking, it was found that the workman had taken full fare of Rs.7/- from 10 passengers without issuing tickets to them. In this way, the Conductor had defrauded the Department by way of embezzlement amounting to Rs.70/- in respect of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. To this charge-sheet, the workman submitted his reply Exhibit M-4 thereby taking the stand that the 10 passengers who were found without tickets had boarded the bus in question from Ambala Cantt and refused to take tickets. Despite his best efforts, they did not get down from the bus. At the time when the checking staff boarded the bus, he was quarreling with those passengers and he requested the checking staff to penalize them and collect 10 times fare as per rules from the 10 passengers but even the checking staff was unable to do the same. Being dis-satisfied with the reply submitted by the workman, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and an intimation to that effect was given to the workman. The workman initially participated in the enquiry proceedings and PW-Niranjan Singh was examined in his presence who was one of the Sub Inspectors of the Checking Staff and the petitioner-workman had cross-examined him during the proceedings but thereafter, he absented himself and did not participate in the same. The Inquiry Officer intimated the workman vide his letter dated 11.8.1995, which was received by the workman, directing him to appear in the enquiry on 17.8.1995, but he failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer. On 22.9.1995, a registered AD letter was sent at the home address of the petitioner informing that the enquiry is now fixed for 22.9.1995 but the workman failed to appear. Having left with no option, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry proceedings ex parte and C.W.P.No.9281 of 2008 -3- submitted his report. A show cause notice bearing No.598 dated 5.2.1996 was issued to the petitioner at his given home address as to why his services be not terminated. The said registered letter was received back by the respondent-Management with the remarks from the postal Authorities that the addressee has specifically refused to accept the same. The workman even in his cross-examination before the Labour Court, where he appeared as WW-1 has accepted that he knew that the enquiry was going on against him. All these factors go a long way to prove that all steps necessary and required under the Rules governing the departmental proceedings have been complied with and the principles of natural justice have also been complied with but the workman had failed to avail all opportunities granted to him to participate in the enquiry and thereafter to furnish reply to the show cause notice issued to him. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the enquiry has been held in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice have been complied with, is totally unjustified and not supported by any evidence. He further contends that the punishment of dismissal of service is too harsh and that a lesser punishment should have been imposed upon the workman. He further contends that the justification given by the workman for non- issuance of the tickets to 10 alleged passengers who were found without tickets have not been taken into consideration either by the Inquiry Officer or by the Labour Court. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the facts in itself are glaring. Proper opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings and thereafter before the Labour C.W.P.No.9281 of 2008 -4- Court but no cogent evidence has been placed on record which would have persuaded the Labour Court to take a view different from the one taken by the Inquiry Officer. The charges levelled against the workman have been fully proved during the enquiry proceedings which do not call for any interference by this Court as the award is in consonance with law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the Labour Court as also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. The facts, as enumerated above, are in itself quite apparent and speak for themselves. What else could a Department in the departmental proceedings do to bring a workman to participate in the enquiry? An intimation had been served upon him in person and through registered letters and despite having knowledge of the enquiry proceedings going on against him, the workman failed to participate in the same although initially he did take part in the enquiry proceedings but thereafter did not participate in the same and no justification has come-forth which could be said to be reasonable enough for his non-participation in the enquiry proceedings. The principles of natural justice which are the guiding force for holding the departmental proceedings to be just and equitable or otherwise, having been fully complied with in the present case and the workman having failed to take benefit of the same, this Court cannot hold in the present facts and circumstances that the enquiry proceedings were not in accordance with law. The enquiry proceedings having been held as per law and the charges having been proved against the workman, which are none else than the embezzlement of Government money, what lenient view can be taken in such like matters where a Government official who has to, day in and day out, deal with the money? In the present case, the workman C.W.P.No.9281 of 2008 -5- a Conductor, who had to issue tickets and for issuance of the tickets had to collect cash, and although he ollected the fare but intentionally did not issue tickets and the embezzlement having been proved, does not deserve any leniency. The punishment of dismissal is the only just and equitable punishment which could be granted in the present case and no lessor punishment is called for qua such an act on the part of a government employee. In view of the above, no interference in the award passed by the Labour Court dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-8) is called for as the same is in consonance with law. The writ petition stands dismissed. March 03, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No