IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2624 of 2001 Girish Chandra Arya S/o Shri Ind Ram Agri ..……… Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri A.K. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Bisht, the learned counsel for the respondents. The delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution on 08/10/2009. Restoration application has been filed by the petitioner. Cause shown is sufficient. The restoration application is allowed. The order dated 08/10/2009 is recalled and the petition is restored to its original number. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Roadways Corporation and met with an accident. An inquiry was instituted in which it was found that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving and had caused loss of damage to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, passed an order of termination. The petitioner being aggrieved raised an industrial dispute u/S 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court, after considering the 2 material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving and that the disciplinary authority was justified in passing the order of the termination. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present writ petition. The only ground urged is that no injuries was caused to the passengers and that the accident occurred on account of the failure of the brakes which was beyond the control of the petitioner. Further arguments were made that in any case, the punishment awarded did not commensurate with the misconduct committed by the petitioner, if any. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Rama Kant Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (1982) 3 SCC 346 wherein the Supreme Court held that the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct. Having hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record and the award passed by the Labour Court one finds from a perusal of the inquiry report that the road was very wide and that the petitioner swayed the bus towards the right side and went into the plantation 50 ft. inside from the main road and thereafter collided against a tree. The Inquiry Officer has further found that the accident did not occur on account of failure of the brakes since there was no tyre marks on the road and that the brake oil was found in the plantation much inside from the road. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner was careless and was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and did not apply the brakes and that the bus eventually stopped when it collided against a tree causing damage to the bus. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of this evidence found that the petitioner was not fit to drive the vehicle and accordingly passed the order of termination. 3 In the light of the aforesaid finding of rash and negligent driving, the question is whether the order of termination passed by the Disciplinary authority was appropriate and commensurated with the misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge to pass the order of punishment when the misconduct is proved. The Court should not interfere in the powers exercised by the disciplinary authority unless the punishment was wholly arbitrary or did not commensurate with the misconduct. In the present case, a categorical finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The petitioner was driving a bus which was carrying passengers and had put on stake their lives by driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Such misconduct putting the lives of the passengers at stake cannot be condoned by a lesser punishment. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the punishment awarded was perfectly justified. This court does not find any error in the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 18.02.2010 Shiv