Civil Writ Petition No.17785 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17785 of 2009 Date of decision:-21.09.2011 Satya Paul ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent Nos.2 and 3. RITU BAHRI J. Challenge is to the award dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court rejecting the reference of the workman. The petitioner was employed as Conductor on 17.4.1981 and his services were terminated on 30.4.2002 after holding an inquiry. As per the inquiry report (Annexure P-4) on 23.3.2000 while he was on duty on Bus No.9883 on Route from Batala to Delhi and Gurdaspur, the bus was checked by the checking staff. There were 30 passengers and qua one passenger it was found that he was issued ticked of Rs.18/-. After making inquiry, he informed that he has paid Rs.90/-. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner alleging that he has embezzled Rs.72/- from the Government Exchequer by taking full share from the passenger and gave him less ticket. His reply was found unsatisfactory. The workman took the plea that inadvertently Civil Writ Petition No.17785 of 2009 -2- he had issued ticked of Rs.18/- to the passenger as colour of the ticket was being same, therefore, the mistake was committed. The prosecution stand has been accepted by the Inquiry Officer that the tickets are sold by the conductor not on the basis of colour but denominations mentioned on the tickets. Even ticket carry the same colour, the plea advanced by the workman had been rejected. The inquiry has been conducted fairly after giving due opportunities to the workman to lead his evidence and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. It is a matter of record that in the past the workman was indulged in embezzlement and he was imposed punishments of stoppage of 32 increments permanently and 22 normal increments were stopped. He was awarded punishment of censure twice. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the workman the scope for interference in the punishment awarded by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Labour Court is very restricted. In the facts of the present case in the past the petitioner has since been awarded punishments for misconduct and embezzlement. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Vilash Rai versus State of Bihar and others 2002(1) S.C.T. 75 where the service rendered in a co- operative bank by an employee for the last 20 years was taken into consideration and punishment of dismissal from service was modified to one of premature retirement. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case before the Supreme Court the employee had acted at the behest of the Board of Directors. Though honestly such action would not exonerate the delinquent from the liabilities, illegalities and Civil Writ Petition No.17785 of 2009 -3- irregularities which he had occurred, but keeping in view the fact that he had rendered 20 years of service, his punishment was modified to the one of premature retirement. In the present case, the delinquent workman has been found guilty of embezzlement not in the year 2000 but on an earlier occasion for the same act he has been punished but retained in the service. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment Chandra Vilash Rai's case (supra). The Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun versus Suresh Pal 2007(1) RSJ 12 has set aside the judgment of the Single Judge whereby the punishment of dismissal was substituted by a lighter punishment. It was a case of conductor, who had found guilty of misconduct of non-issuing of tickets to the passengers. The Supreme Court held that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not substituted a lighter punishment. It would give a wrong signal to the society. The order of dismissal passed by the Transport Corporation was affirmed. In paragraph 8 of this judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under :- “8. Normally, Courts do not substitute the punishment unless they are shockingly disproportionate & if the punishment is interfered or substituted lightly in the exercise of their extra- ordinary jurisdiction then it will amount to abuse of the process of Court. If such kind of misconduct is dealt with lightly and Courts start substituting the lighter punishment in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution then it will give a wrong signal in the Society. All the State Road Transport Corporations in the country have gone in red because of the misconduct of such kind of Civil Writ Petition No.17785 of 2009 -4- incumbents therefore, it is the time that misconduct should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently.” In view of the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. 21.09.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE