ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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: -

(3.) 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.