CWP No. 17274 of 2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (223) CWP No. 17274 of 2016 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-cum-Director Transport, Union Territory, Chandigarh. .....Petitioner Versus Mihan Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Maheshinder Singh Sihu, Addl. Standing Counsel U.T. Chandigarh and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Counsel, U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby the reference has been allowed in favour of the respondent-workman to the effect that punishment of four increments with cumulative effect has been set aside and the management has further been directed to re-fix the pay and also directed to pay him arrears after re- fixation. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1-workman had been appointed as a driver with the petitioner and had been assigned Driver ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 17274 of 2016 -2- No.62. On 28.06.2000 when the workman was performing his duties and was driving bus No.CH-01-G-8106 from Chandigarh to Delhi, an accident occurred. Subsequently, the workman was charge-sheeted on the basis of allegations to the effect that accident took place due to his negligence. The workman replied to the charge-sheet and specifically stated that he had already been acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, as per judgment dated 06.02.2003. An inquiry was conducted, wherein allegedly no evidence was adduced by the department. An adverse report was submitted by the investigating officer against the workman. On the basis of which show cause notice was issued to the workman. Consequently, the Punishing Authority passed an order dated 21.07.2009, whereby four increments of the workman were stopped with cumulative effect. 3. The appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed. In the reference made subsequently, the learned Industrial Tribunal held the workman entitled to release of arrears and for re-fixation of pay. Challenge against the same has been raised in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in passing the impugned award, the Labour Court travelled beyond it’s jurisdiction while interfering with a duly concluded disciplinary proceeding. It is contended that the punishment imposed upon respondent No.1 was preceded by issuance of a charge-sheet, a regular departmental inquiry, supply of the inquiry report, consideration of the workman's representation and grant of personal hearing. The disciplinary and appellate authorities upon due consideration of the material available on record, concurrently found the respondent guilty of failing to discharge his duties with the degree of care expected of a public transport driver. It was thereafter that the penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed. Yet, ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 17274 of 2016 -3- overlooking the facts, the Labour Court erred in holding the inquiry to be a case of ‘no evidence’. It is argued that in the absence of any material showing mechanical failure or any intervening cause, the workman could not escape disciplinary consequences merely because the management did not examine eye-witnesses during the inquiry. Learned counsel further submits that the Labour Court has also attached undue significance to the respondent's acquittal in the criminal case. The impugned award, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court. It is further submitted that the matter has been rendered infructuous, as the impugned award stands complied with and the four stopped increments of the workman have been released along with arrears thereof, and his pay also also been re-fixed vide order dated 05.09.2016, passed by the Director Transport, U.T. Chandigarh. In sequence thereof, the workman has also withdrawn the execution petition filed by him. 6. Heard. 7. The principal basis of the Labour Court's award is its finding that the disciplinary proceedings were unsupported by any legally admissible material. A perusal of the inquiry record demonstrates that the management did not examine a single witness to substantiate the allegation of rash and negligent driving. Equally, the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on which reliance is stated to have been placed by the Inquiry Officer, was admittedly never produced as part of the inquiry record. The finding of guilt, therefore, rested on no evidence brought on record during the disciplinary proceedings. 8. Needless to say that where negligence is specifically alleged, ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 17274 of 2016 -4- the burden lies upon the employer to establish the charge by leading some evidence before the Inquiry Officer. A disciplinary authority cannot presume negligence merely because the delinquent employee happened to be driving the vehicle involved in the accident. 9. The Labour Court has not re-appreciated the sufficiency of evidence but has interfered on the well-recognised ground that the finding of guilt was based on no evidence at all. Such an exercise falls squarely within the parameters of judicial scrutiny over disciplinary proceedings and cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. 10. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 08th, 2026 Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment