Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Union Territory on 27 January, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.23523 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23523 of 2013
Date of decision:27.01.2014
Bhupinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Union Territory, Chandigarh & others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.B.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
*****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(ORAL)
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 21.01.2013 (Annexure P4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh, who has found that the services of the workman were rightly terminated by the Management and no fault could be found in the enquiry proceedings.
2. A perusal of the award would go on to show that the workman was employed on 17.04.1990 as a Conductor with the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking and was chargesheeted on 13.02.2002 and the enquiry officer was appointed on 16.01.2003 and a show cause notice was issued on 08.09.2003. The workman submitted his reply on 06.10.2003 and the services of the workman were dispensed with on 01.11.2004. The appeal filed by the workman was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P3) and order was conveyed to the petitioner on 08.05.2006. It is also apparent that the workman was also chargesheeted on two occasions, i.e., on 13.02.2002 and 16.01.2003, for defrauding the Government. The Labour Court, after examining the enquiry proceedings, found that on 18.11.2001, the Inspector, Mohan Lal and his companion found the petitioner and one Kirpal Singh, consuming liquor in the Sailesh ranjan 2014.02.19 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.23523 of 2013 -2- bus which was under their control. Similarly, qua the incident on 22.09.2001, it was found that there was only one passenger travelling in the bus and that he was also not given ticket. For the said charge, the workman had not opted to face the enquiry proceedings since it was only for a sum of `5/-.
3. However, a perusal of the enquiry report would go on to show that on 17.11.2001, while the bus was checked and two passengers had alighted without tickets by the inspecting team and the said passengers had boarded the bus at Jalandhar for Beas and had paid `32/- @ `16/- each as fare to the Conductor. Similarly, on the very next date, the bus was again checked on 18.11.2001, by a checking team and 17 passengers alighted, without tickets but had paid `85/- @ `5/- each and on further checking, three more passengers were found without tickets and they had paid a sum of `84/- @ `28/- each. In this way, he was found defrauding `169/- from Government revenue. On 18.11.2001 again, checking was done by another set of Inspectors who detected two passengers travelling in the bus from Phagwara to Chandigarh who had paid `120/- @ `60/- each to the Conductor but had not been given tickets. Similarly, from Ludhiana to Katani, the passengers had paid `50/- @ `10/- each but no tickets were issued and to 15 passengers from Ludhiana to Samrala from whom `210/- @ `25/- each was collected but no tickets were issued and 8 passengers were found travelling without tickets from Ludhiana to Morinda from whom `200/- @ `25/- had been collected whereas 22 passengers from Ludhiana to Chandigarh were found travelling without tickets from whom `946/- @ `43/- each had been collected but no tickets were issued. Accordingly, a sum of `1526/- was the shortage.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the checking was done on two consecutive dates and therefore, the Management was prosecuting the petitioner.
Sailesh ranjan2014.02.19 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.23523 of 2013 -3-
5. This Court is unable to accept this submission. It is a case of a delinquent workman who even though being caught on one occasion, has continued to behave in a consistent manner and continued misappropriating the Government money. The Labour Court has examined the record and come to the conclusion that the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority after proper application of mind and the enquiry officer was impartial and fair. Once there has been total loss of faith in the employee, the question of granting any benefit, despite his long service, cannot be considered by this Court. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. A.L.Mohan Rao 2006 (1) SCC 63 held that it is not for the High Court to replace the order of termination, while examining the award of the Labour Court. The dismissal of the bank employee, in that case, was for grant of fictitious loan and the High Court had directed that there will be reinstatement, without any back wages and without any continuity of service, for the purposes of terminal benefits. It was, thus, held that once the enquiry was proper and misconduct had been proved, it cannot be held that termination of service is not appropriate punishment. In Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal 2008 (2) SCT 174 it was held that the Labour Court and the High Court were not justified in taking the view that the punishment was disproportionate once it was found that the Conductor had not issued tickets to about half of the passengers travelling in the bus. In Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. Vs. Kamruddin 2009 (7) SCC 552 it was noticed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee for similar misconduct, for the fifth time and therefore, it would be misplaced sympathy in ordering reinstatement.
6. Accordingly, keeping in view the above settled view, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed. 27.01.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Sailesh ranjan sailesh 2014.02.19 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and JUDGE integrity of this document