Om Parkash vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner was a driver serving in the Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad, since 1978. He was charge-sheeted for willful absence from duty under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, (in short "1987 Rules") vide memo dated 21.05.1998. He did not file any reply to the charge-sheet. On 25.06.1998 another telegram was sent to his known address asking him to be present on duty. He did not report for duty. In the circumstances, charge-sheet issued under Rule 8 of the 1987 Rules for minor misconduct was withdrawn and he was served a fresh charge-sheet for major misconduct under Rule 7 of the 1987 Rules for willful absence from duty from 19.03.1998 onwards. The petitioner did not file the reply to this charge-sheet as well. An inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry was held. The report was submitted in which he was found guilty of remaining willfully absent from duty without leave from 19.03.1998 to 12.12.1998. He was issued show cause notice dated 09.08.2000 proposing termination of his services. He replied to the show cause notice. The reply was not found satisfactory. The petitioner was called for personal hearing on 31.10.2000 vide a registered letter dated 16.10.2000 but he did not appear. A reminder was sent, which was pasted on his residence in the presence of his brother Azad Singh and neighbour Atam Parkash. The petitioner did not appear before the Punishing Authority. His services were terminated on 16.04.2001. There is no dispute that the petitioner was a regular employee of the Transport Department. The order of termination was passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad, on 16.04.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint State Transport Controller (Vehicle), Haryana, being the Appellate Authority. He claimed that illness prevented him from discharging duty. The appeal was rejected on 12.12.2002. The Appellate Authority found from record that the private doctor who had examined the petitioner when he allegedly fell ill on 19.03.1998, had recommended rest for only four days. The petitioner did not produce any medical evidence worthy of credence to support willful absence on account of ill health for the period he remained on unauthorized leave without intimation. The period of willful absence is for about nine months. Plea that he was treated by the homeopathic doctor was found difficult to believe. The Appellate Authority did not find it is a fit case for interference looking not only to his willful absence for the period under charge-sheet but also for the additional reason while examining past record for any mitigating circumstances of his having been in the habit of remaining absent, coming late and was much given to drinking alcohol. He was placed under suspension twice and awarded punishment four times over for leave without pay in the past. He remained under suspension for a period of four years as well and five other cases for absence from duty were pending against him.

A driver of a bus in the Haryana Roadways engaged in performance of an essential public service who fails to make himself available for discharging duties for nine months without prior notice or intimation thereafter deserves no sympathy. To reinstate such a person would not only increase indiscipline but have a deleterious effect on other officials. The learned Labour Court has found nothing unfair in the procedure of inquiry conducted wherein due process was followed. There is no dependable evidence on record to prove the petitioner was suffering from any disease serious enough to withhold labour for so long. The Homeopath who is said to have treated the petitioner was not produced as a witness in defence of the termination order to show on what basis he had certified that the absence of the applicant from duty from 20.03.1998 to 30.11.1998 was absolutely necessary. What was the line of treatment taken is also not known. In the facts of this case the question of the learned Labour Court to have exercised jurisdiction u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to award lesser punishment would not arise. The quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with. There is no infirmity or error apparent in the award of the learned Labour Court. No interference is called for. The petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.