Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Bhan & Ors vs The Presiding Officer Itlc & Ors on 3 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114625
CWP-18088-1999 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
209 CWP-18088-1999 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.09.2024
CHANDER BHAN (DECEASED) THORUGH HIS LRS
....PETITIONER
Vs.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-II, FARIDABAD AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Vinod Kumar Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. Mr. Vinod Kumar Kaushal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf
of the petitioner and filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. Registry
is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Award dated 24.02.1999
(Annexure P-10) whereby Labour Court has answered the reference against the
workman.
3. The petitioner joined respondents as driver on 17.03.1980. On
26.08.1981, he was placed under suspension as there was allegation against him
that he had slapped Prem Chand Gupta, Duty Clerk. He was reinstated on
07.10.1981. The respondents initiated an inquiry against him. The Enquiry
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114625
CWP-18088-1999 (O&M) -2-
Officer submitted his report wherein petitioner was declared guilty. The
Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice dated 25.09.1991 (Annexure P-
3) to him which culminated in his termination from service. He preferred an
appeal before Additional Transport Commissioner, Haryana which came to be
dismissed vide order dated 31.01.1995. After dismissal of appeal, he served
demand notice under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and matter came to be
referred to Labour Court which by impugned order has dismissed his claim.
4. Mr. Vinod Kumar Kaushal, Advocate submits that Authorities have
mechanically dismissed the petitioner. The charges against him were not serious.
The punishment awarded was disproportionate to alleged offence. There was
only one witness.
5. Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana submits that petitioner
was subjected to detailed departmental inquiry wherein he was found guilty. The
Disciplinary Authority considering his reply and evidence on record, ordered to
terminate him. The Appellate Authority did not find any fault in the order of
dismissal. The Labour Court has considered all the submissions of petitioner and
thereafter passed the impugned order.
6. I have heard counsels for the parties and with their able assistance
perused the record.
7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that a departmental inquiry
was conducted wherein petitioner was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority
issued show cause notice and after considering petitioner's reply and evidence
on record came to a conclusion that petitioner had slapped his colleague and he
had missed to carry bus from Palwal to Ferozepur Jhirka. The act of the
petitioner was not simple misconduct whereas it was a serious one. No
responsible employee can be expected to beat his colleagues or miss from his
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114625
CWP-18088-1999 (O&M) -3-
prime duty. He did not drive bus, thus, he missed his duty. Resultantly, many
passengers must have suffered. Being a driver, he was duty bound to take the
bus on the route assigned to him.
8. It is a settled proposition of law that scope of interference while
exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court has no power to look into
quantum of sentence/punishment unless and until Court finds that sentence
awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence. It is further settled proposition of
law that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India can look into the procedure followed by authorities. In
case, it is found that enquiry officer or disciplinary authority has not considered
any evidence on record or misread the evidence or procedure as prescribed by
law has not been followed, the Court can interfere. A two-judge Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Subrata Nath, 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 998 while adverting with scope of interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings has held that
departmental authorities are fact finding authorities. On finding the evidence to
be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary
Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent
employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered its judicial precedents including a two-judge Bench
judgment in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran. The relevant
extracts of the judgment read as
"19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High
Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114625
CWP-18088-1999 (O&M) -4-
proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India
and Others v. P. Gunasekaran held thus :
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-
appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The
finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary
authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first
appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not
venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court
can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the
principles of natural justice in conducting the
proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e)
the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court shall not:
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114625
CWP-18088-1999 (O&M) -5-
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
case the same has been conducted in accordance with
law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of
punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
X X X X
22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding
authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the
evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the
evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental
inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to
impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee
keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in
exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for
that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily re-appreciate the
evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the
penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is
so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be
flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran
(supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent
employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High
Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate
Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty
imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to
be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114625
CWP-18088-1999 (O&M) -6-
impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent
reasons therefore."
9. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court
neither finds that punishment imposed by authorities is disproportionate to
alleged offence nor finds any infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
Moreover, from the perusal of record it comes out that neither there is allegation
nor during the course of arguments there was averment that respondent
authorities have not followed the procedure prescribed by law while conducting
enquiry. The findings recorded by authorities are purely findings of fact and
there is neither jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned order
warranting interference.
10. The present petition sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.
11. Dismissed.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
03.09.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
