IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 2129 and 2130 of 2009 and C.W.P. No. 133 of 2009. Date of Decision : February 18, 2009. Hari Chand Gautam. .... Petitioner. Versus. ThePresiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. Nos. 2129 and 2130 of 2009. Applications allowed as prayed for. C.W.P. No. 133 of 2009. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, vide which the reference of the petitioner-workman has been rejected holding therein that the departmental inquiry held against him was in accordance with statute and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the Labour Court has held that the order of termination is quite justified and in accordance with law. C.W.P. No. 133 of 2009. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that for the mis- conduct which was alleged to have been committed by the petitioner- workman on 23.12.1991, an F.I.R. No. 23, dated 23.12.1991 was registered against the him. After the trial, the petitioner-workman has been acquitted by the Court and therefore, on this basis he has a ground for reinstatement in service. He contends that the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner-workman for dismissal was only with regard to the inquiry held against him for the charge dated 23.12.1991 but the punishing authority has taken into consideration earlier conduct of the petitioner-workman and especially the order passed by the Criminal Court dated 28.11.1992 which was based on confessional statement made by the petitioner-workman. He further contends that a lenient view should have been taken by the Labour Court in view of the fact that the petitioner-workman has put in about 17 years of service when his services were terminated. I have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award. The petitioner-workman was charge-sheeted on 30.12.1991 for his misbehaviour with the Senior Manager of the Bank at Thanesar, under the influence of liquor. The petitioner-workman was already under suspension in an incident which had taken place on 22.07.1991 when he had mis-conducted with the Manager and staff members of the Bank. In the said chargesheet, the petitioner-workman did not file the reply and a departmental inquiry was ordered to be conducted against him on 10.02.1992. The petitioner-workman participated in the said inquiry and the inquiry report was submitted on 04.01.1993. On the basis of the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-workman vide order dated 04.01.1993 and personal hearing was given to him on 18.01.1993 by -2- C.W.P. No. 133 of 2009. the punishing authority. He appeared before the punishing authority and admitted his guilt and prayed for a lenient view. The punishing authority on going through the records of the case passed an order of dismissal holding therein that he was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 04.01.1993 with which he agreed. Apart from that the punishing authority has taken into consideration the previous record of the petitioner-workman to come to a conclusion with regard to the quantum of punishment which has to be imposed on him. It is in this context that the reference with regard to the order passed by the Criminal Court wherein he had confessed his guilt and he was punished for that, holding him guilty of the incident. The contention, therefore, of counsel for the petitioner that the earlier conduct and especially the order of the Criminal Court has been taken into consideration while punishing the petitioner-workman, cannot be accepted as the punishment is not based solely on the order of the Criminal Court. The punishment is based on the conduct of petitioner-workman who has been held guilty of the charges which have been proved against him and it is only for the quantum of punishment which has to be granted to him that reference of his earlier conduct has been made in the order of punishment. The Labour Court on assessment and having gone through the records of the case has come to a conclusive finding that the workman has been given full opportunity to defend himself. Further, the conduct of the workman has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while coming to a conclusion that the punishment of dismissal is quite justified and in accordance with law. The Labour Court has observed that the workman has misbehaved and abused and used filthy language against the Manager of the Punjab National Bank -3- C.W.P. No. 133 of 2009. and that too under the influence of liquor. This incident took place at 01:00 in the afternoon when it was banking hours and a class-IV employee as is the workman, if comes to the Bank where he is working conducts himself in the manner which is alleged to have been done by him, the image in the mind of the public about the institution and its authorities is totally shattered. The discipline is a hallmark of any administration and if that is given a go- bye and that too under the influence of liquor, misbehaving with the senior officer, there can be no other way to control such indiscipline in the organisation. The punishment, therefore, handed out on the workman, is fully justified and no lenient view can be taken in such like cases where the subordinate officials misbehave with their seniors and that too under the influence of liquor without any provocation as in the present case. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 18, 2009. sjks. -4-