CWP-924-2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (210) CWP-924-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 JASPAL SINGH .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of the award dated 1.3.1996 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana, in Reference No.290 of 1991, whereby his claim for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service was declined. 2. The facts, as they emerge from the record, are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor with respondent-Roadways in February, 1978. It was alleged that the petitioner had received the fare of Rs.5.50/- from these passengers but had not issued tickets to them, and had done so only after seeing the checking staff. On the allegations of illegal gratification with regard to an incident dated 04.03.1983, a charge-sheet dated 22.3.1983 was issued to the petitioner, alleging embezzlement of Rs.5.50/- and misconduct SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-924-2001 (O&M) -2- in the discharge of his duties, in response to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.5.1983. A departmental enquiry was ordered, wherein statements of the official witnesses, were recorded in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner also examined one defence witness, Avtar Singh. The Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 22.8.1984, held the charge of embezzlement of Rs.5.50 and negligence in duty to be proved against the petitioner. 3. A show cause notice dated 29.8.1984 was thereafter issued to the petitioner proposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.9.1984, but the same was not found satisfactory, and vide order dated 18.10.1984, the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute, which was decided against him vide the impugned award. Aggrieved therefrom, the present petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner's termination from service was illegal, and arbitrary inasmuch as the order appointing the Enquiry Officer was never supplied to him, and the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and that the disciplinary authority mechanically accepted the enquiry report without independently applying its mind and failed to properly consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice. It is further submitted that the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate to the alleged embezzlement of ₹5.50/-, and that the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-924-2001 (O&M) -3- case of State of Mysore Vs. K. Manche Gowda, 1964 AIR (SC) 506, and judgments of High Courts in the case of Purushotam Lal Saini v. Central Bank of India and others, 2015 (3) CLR 509, Pawan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., 2023(3) SLR 437, Surendra Prasad Pande v. State of Madhya Pradesh and three others, 2007(3) MPHT 565, State of Haryana v. Bikar Singh, 2002(2) SLR 341 and Kuldip Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporatizing, Patiala and others, 1995(3) PLR 241. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the reference should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. Be that as it may, she submits that the impugned order of termination had been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. The enquiry against the petitioner was conducted after giving full and proper opportunity to him to cross-examine the official witnesses and to lead his defence. Accordingly, the impugned award suffers from no infirmity and thus deserves to be upheld. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts and, therefore, do not advance the petitioner's case. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Labour Court upon due appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence on record, held that no specific defect in the conduct of the enquiry had been pointed out by the petitioner's representative, and that the mere fact that statements of the passengers were not recorded did not vitiate the enquiry, more so when the petitioner had, before the checking staff itself, admitted having collected the fare without issuing tickets, and had thereafter issued unpunched tickets on the spot. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-924-2001 (O&M) -4- 8. The Labour Court further held that, once the charge of embezzlement stood established, the punishment of removal from service could not be said to be disproportionate, irrespective of the quantum of the amount involved. Accordingly, the Labour Court, vide award dated 1.3.1996, held that the termination of the petitioner's services was not unjustified, and declined to grant him any relief. 9. So far as the contention regarding non-supply of the order appointing the Enquiry Officer is concerned, it was held that the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings throughout, cross-examined the official witnesses, and led his own defence evidence, without raising any such objection at the relevant time. No prejudice on this count had thus been shown to have been caused to the petitioner. 10. Trite to say that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Interference is warranted only when the findings suffer from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. 11. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are based upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that the impugned award suffers from any jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 12. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award dated 1.3.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana. The present writ petition is, accordingly, SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-924-2001 (O&M) -5- dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 21.07.2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document