IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4000 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 16, 2009. Sukhdarshan Singh. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Secretary Transport, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. H.S. Sirohi, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure-P-5), vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the confession which has been made the basis for holding him guilty of the charge of embezzling Rs. 27/- for non issuance of tickets to two passengers and for having excess amount of Rs. 171/- in his cash bag which was found during the checking of the bus by the checking staff, was obtained under duress and therefore, was not a voluntary admission on the part of the petitioner- workman. He contends that this could not be made the basis for imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. He contends that the Labour Court should have taken a lenient view. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Perusal of the award clearly indicates that on the basis of the charges and on consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner- C.W.P. No. 4000 of 2009. workman, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations against the conductor who on checking was found to have not issued the tickets to two passengers amounting to Rs. 13.50 each. Further on checking of his cash bag, an excess amount of Rs. 171/- was found with him. During the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner-workman moved an application before the Enquiry Officer on 12.02.1993, pleading guilty to the charges framed against him, and thereafter, his statement was recorded before the Enquiry Officer where he again admitted the charges. The petitioner- workman having accepted the charges, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner-workman guilty of the charges. A show cause notice was issued to him proposing punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect to which the petitioner-workman filed a reply. He had pleaded that a lenient view be taken but the reply did not reflect anything about the confession which he had made by way of application or during his statement before the Enquiry Officer that the same was obtained under duress or by putting undue influence on him. On consideration of the reply filed by petitioner-workman, the punishing authority imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner-workman did not take any further steps for seven long years and thereafter preferred an appeal on 29.03.2001. The appellate authority on consideration of the appeal rejected the same and thereafter the dispute was raised by the petitioner-workman which came to be decided vide the impugned award. The factual aspect as has been depicted in the award which is passed on the evidence produced by the parties clearly indicate that proper inquiry was held against the petitioner-workman as per the rules as -2- C.W.P. No. 4000 of 2009. on his admission no further action in the inquiry proceedings was called for. The punishment which has been given to the petitioner-workman in the facts and circumstances, was fully justified and the same having been accepted by the Labour Court, does not call for any interference by this Court in the present writ petition.. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the petitioner-workman was suspended and an inquiry was ordered under Rule 14 of Central Civil Rules (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 whereas the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner- workman is under the Punjab Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970. It is not disputed that the rules applicable to petitioner-workman is Punjab Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970, and this position clearly shows that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner-workman is in accordance with rules governing the service. Apart from this, this issue was neither raised before the appellate authority when the petitioner-workman preferred the departmental appeal or before the Labour Court and therefore, this contention at this stage cannot be allowed to be raised. Finding no merit in the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner-workman, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 16, 2009. sjks. -3-