CWP No. 20996 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20996 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th November, 2011. Raghubir Singh Petitioner through Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner – Workman is aggrieved by the award dated 17.05.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Hisar answering the reference against him and dismissing his claim for re-instatement. [2]. The petitioner was a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways when FIR No. 465 dated 10.08.1993, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him in Police Station, City Hisar, inter-alia, alleging that he had misappropriated tickets amounting to `16,789.50. The petitioner was arrested in the afore-stated case on 15.09.1994 and remained in custody till he was released on bail on 15.11.1994. He is claimed to have reported for duty after his release on bail but the Authorities ddid not allow him to resume duties on the plea that his services already stood terminated vide order dated 21.10.1994. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar vide judgment dated 11.07.2002 holding that though entrustment of tickets to the petitioner stood CWP No. 20996 of 2011. ::-2-:: proved but “dishonest misappropriation thereof could not be proved by the prosecution”. The petitioner was, thus, given the benefit of doubt but with liberty to the Department to take departmental action against him. It was thereafter only that the petitioner moved an application for his reinstatement and then raised the industrial dispute which was initially answered in his favour by the Labour Court vide Award dated 22.05.2009 holding him entitled for re- instatement in service with 50% back wages. [3]. The Department challenged the afore-stated award before this Court in CWP No. 13366 of 2009. After taking notice of the fact that the petitioner-workman was removed from service by invoking the powers under Article 311[2][b] of the Constitution and the Labour Court ought to have returned a finding regarding reasonableness of the satisfaction of the Authority to arrive at the conclusion that holding of departmental inquiry was not feasible, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on the above mentioned issue. [4]. The Labour Court while deciding the case afresh, framed the following issues:- “1. As per terms of reference?OPA 2. Whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was illegal, unfair and liable to be set aside, as alleged?OPA 3. Whether the reference is time barred?OPM 4. Relief”. [5]. While deciding the first question with reference to Article 311[2][b] of the Constitution, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-workman was served with a charge- CWP No. 20996 of 2011. ::-3-:: sheet and the inquiry proceedings were dispensed with by the Disciplinary Authority on formation of an opinion that it was not feasible to hold the inquiry as the petitioner was in custody. The award takes notice of the fact that the petitioner was facing separate inquiries for misappropriation of tickets worth `39,299/- besides for being absent from duty continuously w.e.f. 20.04.1993. The Labour Court has further found that there is an inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute as the workman was dismissed from service on 20.10.1994 whereas the industrial dispute has been raised by him after acquittal in the criminal case, i.e., in the year 2002. [6]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. [8]. There is indeed no doubt that the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against a delinquent, must be founded upon valid reasons in writing. The aforesaid three ingredients have been proved in the present case. The Disciplinary Authority recorded the reasons in writing that the petitioner was in jail and holding of an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Civil Services [Punishment and Appeal] Rules, 1984, in consonance with the principles of natural justice was not possible. The petitioner as per his own case, was released from jail on 15.11.1994 and admittedly he came to know of the order of dismissal passed against him. The petitioner neither preferred a departmental appeal nor challenged the said order before an appropriate forum. It was not a case where the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of his conduct CWP No. 20996 of 2011. ::-4-:: which led to his conviction in a criminal case as there was no order of conviction ever passed against him. There was no legal or factual necessity for the petitioner to wait for the outcome of the pending criminal case. The Labour Court award, coupled with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate acquitting the petitioner in the criminal case, further reveal that the petitioner had gone completely out of control and was indulging in one or the other act of misappropriation of the Government property. There were more than one disciplinary cases against the petitioner. He took away tickets worth thousands of rupees and misappropriated that amount. The petitioner has not attributed any mala-fide or bias against anyone either in these proceedings or earlier. In order to get rid of a habitual embezzler, if the Disciplinary Authority formed a bona-fide opinion to invoke Article 311[2][b] and dismissed him from service, no margin of legal technicalities need to be extended in favour of such an employee. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority was in public interest and calls for no interference by this Court. [9]. Dismissed in limine. November 14, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE