Roshan Lal Bhatia vs N.M.M. Library
2006 Latest Caselaw 1904 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

Caveat No. /2006 (to be numbered)

Since the Caveator has put in appearance through counsel, the caveat stands disposed of.

CM No. 14405/2006 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

LPA No. 2037/2006 & CM No. 14404/2006 (stay)

1. This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th October, 2006 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The facts of the case are as follows:

2. The appellant was appointed as an Electrician by the Management of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library and was posted at Son et Lumiere (sound and light show) which is one of the attractions at the Nehru Museum. He was found to be negligent and careless in his duties and he went to the extent of tampering with the switch board. He also entered into a scuffle with one of the security guards and was suspended on 23rd June, 1983. The charges of negligence and indiscipline were proved against him in the departmental enquiry and he was awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement. The matter went before the labour court. The labour court decided the matter in favor of the appellant. The respondent challenged the award in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter was remanded back to labour court for giving final award. The labour court gave final award in favor of the appellant and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. The respondent again filed writ petition challenging the award. The said writ petition of the respondent has been allowed and the learned single Judge quashed the findings of the facts recorded by the labour courts. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has confined his challenge only to the punishment of compulsory retirement as being highly disproportionate, warranting interference of the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the fact that the appellant had served for 8 years without any incident of misconduct should have been the governing factor in the matter and since the appellant remained out of service for 18 years, it should have been treated as sufficient punishment to the appellant.

4. Having taken into account that the incident for which the appellant was found guilty which led to the abandoning of the sound and light show and the fact that he was further found abusing the security officer, we are of the view that unchallenged finding of his culpability is sufficient to sustain the awarded punishment. We are also of the view that in a given case such as the present one even a single incident of proved misconduct which may be very grave can lead to the sustaining of the punishment of removal from service. Since the inquiry's fairness has not been challenged, this Court has to proceed on the findings of delinquency of the appellant. Since the appellant has received payment under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, for two and a half years to the tune of over Rs. 8,000/- per month without doing any work for the respondent, we feel that he has been adequately compensated and there is no justification for setting aside the compulsory retirement or for reducing the punishment, in the facts and circumstances of this case.

4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The application for stay also stands dismissed.