The Lawrence School and Others vs The Presiding Officer and Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J.—Both these writ petitions arise from the award rendered by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal comprised in Annexure P-7 in CWP No. 4600 of 2014. The workman/petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 4600 of 2014 has sought the setting aside of the award rendered by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla, in so far as it affirms the findings and conclusions rendered by the Inquiry Officer, qua the proven commission of misconduct, at the instance of the workman whereupon the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, upon him. Besides, the relief of back wages being afforded to the petitioner/workman, is claimed against the respondent/employer. However, in CWP No. 5449 of 2013 the petitioner/employer/disciplinary authority, is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, whereby it, in substitution to the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the delinquent workman by the disciplinary authority, has imposed upon him the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

The learned counsel for the disciplinary authority/employer has in trite contended before this Court that the imposition upon the workman/delinquent in the impugned award of a penalty lesser than the one imposed by the disciplinary authority is in stark and blatant, disproportion to the proven misconduct of forgery and falsification of certificates committed by the workman/delinquent.

The learned counsel on either side have been heard at length. During the course of arguments this Court has rummaged through the entire record. The imputation of misconduct against the workman/delinquent is comprised in the factum of his having obtained the pecuniary benefit of educational allowance, constituted by his act of falsifying/forging certificates to portray the factum of his wards/children pursuing studies in Sarswati Niketan School, Nalwa, and Shakuntla Girls Senior Secondary School, Patiala. A detailed and rigorous domestic inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer qua the imputations of misconduct levelled against the delinquent/workman. A circumspect perusal of the cross-examination of the delinquent/workman wherein he displays the factum of his having been given a reasonable, adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the Inquiry Officer does oust the counsel for the petitioner/workman, to contend that the findings and conclusions recorded by the Inquiry Officer, stand infirmed by any infraction of the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, the pronouncements in the impugned award considered in entwinement with the record available before this Court, does display that adequate proof was lent, by the employer, constituted by the fact of theirs adducing the evidence of the clerk of Sarswati Niketan School, Nalwa, who in his deposition divulged that none of the children were prosecuting studies in the school aforesaid, so as to fasten a tenable claim in the workman/delinquent to on the strength of theirs purportedly prosecuting studies therein, claim the educational allowance as prescribed in the apposite rules, as stand extracted hereinafter, to sustain the imputations of misconduct ascribed to the workman/delinquent:-

"2. Education Allowance: Minimum of Rs. 70/- per child per month subject to actual tuition expenses per child per month maximum upto Rs. 200/- per month only for two children on the production of actual tuition fee slip to be put up before management w.e.f. 1.11.1999 agreed by both the parties."

Besides, the existence of Annexure P-5 and P-6, which are communications addressed by the Principal Shakuntala Girls Sr. Secondary School, Patiala, with a manifest revelation therein of the wards/children of the workman/delinquent not prosecuting studies therein, for hence facilitating him to claim the educational allowance, when both stand unrebutted by evidence cogent and worthy to dislodge their probative worth. In sequel, it has to be invincibly concluded with formidability that both the imputations of misconduct attributed to the delinquent/workman stood firmly established as well as substantiated.

During the course of arguments the counsel for the workman/delinquent has made a very assiduous effort to constrain this Court to conclude that the imposition of penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect as imposed upon the delinquent in the impugned award, is in proportion to the gravity of proven misconduct and it necessitates vindication rather its being disturbed.

However, the principle of proportionality for meeting of imposition of penalty upon the delinquent contemplates commensuration inter se/viz.a.viz the penalty imposed upon the delinquent with the gravity of misconduct. Obviously, the proven misconduct committed by the workman/delinquent, is gross. Besides, the moral depravity of the proven misconduct constitutes it to be of a grave nature. As a corollary, the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service upon the workman/delinquent, cannot at all be considered to be disproportionate to the gravity of proven misconduct committed by the delinquent workman. Moreover, in a judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. and Another Vs. Bajrang Lal, (2014) AIRSCW 2058 : (2014) 3 JT 604 : (2014) 2 LLJ 257 : (2014) 3 SCALE 615 : (2014) 4 SCC 693 , the relevant paragraphs 19 and 20 whereof stand extracted hereinafter, it has been postulated that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service for proven misconduct of misappropriation is an appropriate punishment:-

"19. As regards the question of disproportionate punishment is concerned, the issue is no more res-integra. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 126 FLR 157 : (2010) 6 JT 320 : (2010) 6 SCALE 87 : (2010) 6 SCC 555 : (2010) 5 SLR 128 , it was held as under:

"22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishan Behari and others, (1996) 3 AD 34 : AIR 1996 SC 1249 : (1996) 73 FLR 1429 : (1996) 3 JT 96 : (1996) LabIC 1056 : (1996) 2 SCALE 698 : (1996) 2 SCC 714 : (1996) 2 SCR 827 : (1996) 1 UJ 799 this Court held as under:(SCC p. 715, para 4)

"4. ...... In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large, it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant."

Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston and Hornsby (I) Ltd. Vs. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025 : (1975) 31 FLR 173 : (1975) 2 LLJ 352 : (1976) 3 SCC 71 : (1976) 1 SCR 119 : (1975) 7 UJ 590 , U.P.SRTC vs. Basudeo Chaudhary ( 1997 (11) SCC 370 ) Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha Etc., AIR 2000 SC 3129 : (2000) 87 FLR 483 : (2000) 10 JT 589 : (2000) 2 LLJ 1395 : (2000) 6 SCALE 446 : (2000) 7 SCC 517 : (2000) SCC(L&S) 958 : (2000) 3 SCR 367 Supp : (2000) AIRSCW 3439 : (2000) 6 Supreme 339 , Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, AIR 2001 SC 930 : (2001) 88 FLR 912 : (2001) 2 JT 72 : (2001) 1 LLJ 725 : (2001) 1 SCALE 373 : (2001) 2 SCC 574 : (2001) SCC(L&S) 469 : (2001) 1 SCR 487 : (2001) AIRSCW 593 : (2001) 1 Supreme 342 and Rajasthan SRTC vs. Ghanshyam Sharma ( JT 2001 (10) SC 12)."

In view of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent employee that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the delinquency is not worth acceptance. The only punishment in case of the proved case of corruption is dismissal from service."

With an explicit authoritative pronunciation having emanated from the Hon''ble Apex Court that the proven misconduct of misappropriation is a misdemeanor which tantamounts to moral turpitude, as such, the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service would be an apt and appropriate punishment. Obviously, paying reverence to the verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court, especially given the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman tantamounting to a misdemeanor displaying moral turpitude, the imposition upon him of a penalty of dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority was the fittest and appropriate punishment. It was not disproportionate to the gravity of proven misconduct committed by the delinquent/workman. Ensuably, it ought not to have been disturbed as untenably done by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, in his impugned award. Accordingly, CWP No. 5449 of 2013 is accepted and CWP No. 4600 of 2014 is rejected. The learned counsel for the employer states at the bar that he will not raise any objection in case the delinquent/employee claims release of an amount as deposited in the Registry of this Court in pursuance to orders in CMP No. 8297 of 2014 on 1.7.2014. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.