Lakhi Ram vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 26 October, 2009

CWP No. 13341 of 2008                             1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


                                     CWP No. 13341 of 2008
                                Date of decision October 26, 2009

Lakhi Ram

                                                        .......   Petitioner
                                Versus

The State of Haryana and another

                                                  ........ Respondents

CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:-         Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
                  for the petitioner.

                  Mr. R. P. Vig, Advocate
                  for respondent No.2.


                         ****

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? No

2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the digest? No

****

K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The writ petition challenges the rejection of

reference sought at the instance of the workman for dismissal from service.

The petitioner had been appointed as a driver in the respondent’s

Corporation and on 8.2.2002 involved a vehicle he was driving in an

accident. The departmental enquiry was constituted after a charge sheet

had been given to him stating that the accident took place by his

negligence and the aggravating factor was that the driver had not returned

immediately at 5.00 P.M. as ordered by the Superior Officer but he took the

vehicle belatedly and the accident took place at around 7.30 P.M.

Opportunity had been granted before the enquiry officer to participate in the

enquiry and the misconduct attributed to the workman has been found
CWP No. 13341 of 2008 2

established. The report of the enquiry officer had been served on the

workman to show cause against the proposed action from dismissal of

service. The workman had given his explanation and the disciplinary

authority ultimately passed an order dismissing him from service on

24.2.2004. The workman had preferred an appeal to the Board of

Directors and the same was disposed on 8.7.2005. While disposing of the

appeal, the Appellate Authority had also found that even as regards the

past conduct it had never remained satisfactory as he has been charge

sheeted earlier also for putting political pressure in the matter of transfer

and for not complying with the orders issued from Head Office.

2. Before the Labour Court nothing was elicited

beyond stating that he was not found to be in a drunken state as was

referred to in the FIR and that he had not been negligent. The proof of

misconduct was not merely an accident but also the fact that he had been

insubordinate to his superior officer. In the matter of punishment the

Court’s interference is restricted only to examine that whether the

punishment is grossly disproportionate and capricious in nature. For

misconduct attributed to the workman namely of insubordination and for

causing an accident due to negligence, the Management had decided to

terminate the services. Nothing can be seen as capricious or excessive for

Court’s interference. The award of the Labour Court is fully justified and

there is no scope for interference. The writ petition is accordingly

dismissed.

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
October 26, 2009
archana