IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15821 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 22, 2011. Rajpal Singh .....Petitioner versus M/s Nuchem Limited and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ranjan Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 is aggrieved by the Award dated 28.2.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, answering the reference against him and dismissing his claim for reinstatement in service with back wages. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that similar worded award passed against another workman, namely, Satpal Singh, was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.15555 of 2011 (Satpal Singh versus M/s Nuchem Limited and another) which has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 29.8.2011. CWP No.15821 of 2011 [2] I have gone through the order dated 29.8.2011, the operative part whereof reads as follows:- “......The Supreme Court has held that when the acts which lead to initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings were not exactly the same which were subject matter of the criminal case then disciplinary proceedings initiated should continue. The view in Nelson Motis's case (supra) has been followed in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathamthitta and others versus A.Gopalan, 1997 (11) SCC 239 and held that the nature and scope of proof in a criminal case is very different from that of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and order of acquittal in the former, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings. In South Bengal State Transport Corporation versus Swapan Kumar Mitra and others 2006 (2) RSJ 150 the Supreme Court has held that order of removal from service emanating from a departmental proceeding can be passed even after acquittal of the delinquent employee. The Supreme Court in the present case had upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge whereby a direction had been given to initiate the inquiry proceedings after supplying the copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee. The disciplinary authority was directed to reach the final conclusion on the question whether the order of removal from service could be passed on the question of removal from service. In the present case, the challenge to the dismissal order is only on the ground that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The petitioner had been facing criminal trial and his absence from duty was not to disturb the administrative CWP No.15821 of 2011 [3] environment of the management. The dismissal order does not require any interference by this Court on the ground that his entire service record has been perused by the punishing authority and with due application of mind and due to serious acquisitions it was decided not to keep him in service......” Following the same, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. November 22, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE