Rup Chand vs State Of Haryana Etc
2025 Latest Caselaw 50 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rup Chand vs State Of Haryana Etc on 1 April, 2025

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044317




CWP-19713-1998 (O&M)                      -1-

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH


212                                             CWP-19713-1998 (O&M)
                                                Date of Decision :01.04.2025


Rup Chand                                                           ...Petitioner


                                  Versus


The State of Haryana and others                                   ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

            Ms. Nidhi, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Chahar, Advocate
            for respondent No.3-Municipal Committee.

                           ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to award dated

20.03.1997 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak by which, the claim of the petitioner-

workman that he was working since 1971 and his services have wrongly

been terminated on 28.08.1987 by the respondent No.3, has been rejected by

the Labour Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that

initially when a reference was raised by the petitioner-workman, a finding

was recorded by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Rohtak vide award dated 20.09.1994 (Annexure P/2) that enquiry

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044317

CWP-19713-1998 (O&M) -2-

proceedings were not held in a manner required.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman further submits

that mere furnishing of enquiry report thereafter and passing an order dated

28.08.1987 (Annexure P/1) of termination, will not suffice the issue and the

petitioner-workman should have been reinstated in service by recording the

finding that enquiry proceedings were held in a manner violating the rules

governing the said issue.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits

that once, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-workman and he

filed the reply after completion of disciplinary proceedings and keeping in

view the totality of the circumstances award dated 28.08.1987 (Annexure

P/1), was passed by the competent authority terminating the services of the

petitioner-workman, which was held to be perfectly valid hence, the writ

petition filed by the petitioner-workman may kindly be dismissed.

5. Against the said argument of the learned counsel for respondent

No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that punishment

of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges alleged and

proved against the petitioner-workman and hence, the impugned award

dated 28.08.1987 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

7. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that petitioner-

workman was working on a Class-IV post of Sweeper and was the

President of the Worker's Union. Further, the allegations were that officers

of the respondent No.3-Municipal Committee were manhandled, which

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044317

CWP-19713-1998 (O&M) -3-

charge was proved against the petitioner-workman. Once, the said charge

has been proved against the petitioner-workman and the enquiry

proceedings were held to be valid after serving the show cause notice to the

petitioner-workman, nothing has been pointed out as to how, the finding

recording by the Tribunal is perverse to the facts and evidence, which has

come on record.

8. Further, in the award dated 20.09.1994 (Annexure P/2), it was

held that the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner-workman before

passing the order, which report was subsequently given and the said fact

was taken into consideration which fact is clear from para-13 of award dated

20.02.1997 (Annexure P/3) and ultimately, the finding has been recorded

that enquiry has been conducted in a manner required. Once, the irregularity

stood regularized, it cannot be said that the said proceedings will be treated

as bad for all intent and purposes, even for deciding the issue. The enquiry

was not held to be illegal but was held to be irregular only, which

irregularity stood cured after serving the copy of enquiry report upon the

petitioner-workman.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman has argued that the

punishment imposed upon the petitioner-workman is disproportionate to the

charges alleged and proved against the petitioner-workman.

10. It may be noticed that allegations against the petitioner-

workman is of abusing the superior and manhandling them. Said allegations

have been proved. It cannot be said that abusing and manhandling of the

superior is not a gross misconduct, which can lead to termination of service.

In case, the said findings are recorded that manhandling or abusing of

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044317

CWP-19713-1998 (O&M) -4-

superior is not a gross misconduct to invite punishment of termination of

service, it will lead to indiscipline amongst the employees, which is not

conducive for the institution to run smoothly. The discipline is must for all

including the employees and the petitioner-workman has violated the said

principle of discipline by abusing and manhandling the seniors hence, it

cannot be said that punishment imposed upon the petitioner-workman was

disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner-

workman.

11. Even otherwise, as per the settled principle of law settled by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.219-2023 titled as,

Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar, decided on 19.01.2023,

a punishment can only be modified by the Court in case, the same is

shockingly disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved. Relevant

paragraphs of the judgment are as under:-

6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate.

As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044317

CWP-19713-1998 (O&M) -5-

the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution.

6.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal imposed and ordering reinstatement of the respondent. 6.4 At this stage, it is required to be observed that even while holding that the punishment/penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, thereafter, no further punishment/penalty is imposed by the Division Bench of the High Court except denial of back wages. As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable."

12. From the bare perusal of the above, it is clear that mere

disproportionate punishment cannot be made a ground to set aside the same

and the punishment should be shocking disproportionate to the charges

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044317

CWP-19713-1998 (O&M) -6-

alleged. In the present case, the punishment of termination of service upon

the petitioner-workman, who abused and manhandled his superior cannot be

treated as shockingly disproportionate.

13. No other argument has been raised.

14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded

hereinbefore, the present petition is dismissed.

15. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also

disposed of.

April 01, 2025                     (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti                                       JUDGE
            Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
            Whether reportable :        No




                                       6 of 6