Roshan Lal vs State of Haryana

Ajay Tewari, J.—This petition has been filed for issuance of direction to the respondents to count the whole service of the petitioners and to quash the Award dated 25.07.1995 whereby the petitioner was pre-mature retired. The petitioner had joined the Indian Army in the year 1962 and worked as a driver there till the year 1974. He thereafter joined the respondent-department as a driver in the Haryana Roadways. He was allegedly absent unauthorizedly for 4 days from 22.03.1987 to 25.03.1987 and was subsequently charge-sheeted. After regular inquiry it was proved that the absence was unauthorized and he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. At that time he had about 14 years of service. He challenged that dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act and by the impugned Award the learned Labour Court held that though the chargesheet against him stood proved yet the punishment was too harsh and directed the respondents to grant him fresh appointment.

The case set up in the petition is that even the order of the learned Labour Court is also extremely prejudicial as it has resulted in wiping out the earlier service of the petitioner. The learned Labour Court has not considered the earlier record of the petitioner both as a Soldier and in the respondent-department. It has been further averred that apart from this aberration the record of the petitioner is blameless. It has been further averred that the petitioner had to proceed on leave due to his illness and despite his request he was not granted rest. In the written statement, the fact regarding the previous blameless service of the petitioner has not been disputed though the averment that he had sought rest has not been accepted. In the petition, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dalip Singh v. Presiding Officer, passed in C.W.P. No. 2660 of 1996, decided on 19.07.1996, wherein a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the situation where the serviceman was similarly appointed as a driver and after 15 years was charged with for consuming liquor while on duty. In that case, he was originally dismissed and he approached the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Labour Court had held the dismissal order too harsh and directed the respondent-department to grant him fresh appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner in that case filed a writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 2660 of 1996 wherein a Division Bench held as follows:-

We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner has been found guilty of having consumed liquor while on duty and the Labour Court has rightly held that the enquiry made by the employer was fair and proper and also that the finding recorded during domestic enquiry does not suffer from any illegality, but we find that while exercising its power u/s 11-A of 1947 Act, the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the reach and extent of the jurisdiction vesting in it u/s 11-A. There is no reference in the impugned award to the total service rendered by the workman. There is also no reference to the service record of the workman. The Labour Court has also not taken into consideration the fact that the workman has served in the Indian Army before joining the Roadways and had completed 15 years of service without any blemish. Without examining these important factors, the Labour Court straightway directed reinstatement as a fresh recruit. This shows that the Labour Court has completely failed to apply its mind to the relevant factors which ought to have been considered while examining the issue of quantum of punishment and this amounts to a patent illegality.

Ordinarily, we would have remanded the case to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner has suffer the agony of unemployment for a period of more than five years, we have accepted the request of both the counsel to examine ourselves the nature of punishment to substitute it by a lesser punishment. In our view, the misconduct of consumption of liquor cannot be itself be treated as a grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service. In our opinion, punishment of stoppage of increments would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh recruit is set aside. The punishment awarded by the respondent-General Manager vide Annexure P-2 is also set aside and is substituted by a penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service, but he shall not be entitled to the wages for the period between the date of termination of service and the date of the award. He shall also not be entitled to anything over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him for the period of suspension.

I put it to the learned Assistant Advocate General as the above mentioned case would be different from the present case, he is not in a position to meaningfully distinguish the matter. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed in the same terms as in C.W.P. No. 2660 of 1996. The impugned award dated 25.07.1995 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the whole service of the petitioner. It is clarified that as the petitioner was pre-maturely retired as per Annexure R-1 on medical grounds, the service shall be counted till that date. Let the necessary benefits be computed and released to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date the amount/s fell due till the date/s of payment.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.