CM-5949-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-11803-2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (107) CM-5949-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-11803-2019 Date of Decision : 30.04.2025 Virender Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) CM-5949-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 11.03.2025, by which, the present writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 11.03.2025 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status. CWP-11803-2019 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 06.11.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Labour Court by which the termination of the services of the petitioner has been held to be valid. Kanchan 2025.05.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-5949-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-11803-2019 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though, it is a conceded fact that the petitioner without getting an Ex-India leave sanctioned, had gone abroad (Australia) and remained there but the respondents were under obligation to serve the notice to the petitioner before passing an order of termination even if the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had ten years of service to his credit, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4. It is a conceded fact that the petitioner left India and went to Australia without getting the Ex-India leave sanctioned. It is also a conceded fact that for the said unauthorized absence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and after proving the allegations, his services have been terminated. Once, the petitioner went abroad without getting the Ex-India Leave sanctioned and remained there for a sufficient time, it cannot be said that the allegation of an authorized absence has wrongly been proved against him. 5. Further, once, in the departmental enquiry the allegations alleged against the petitioner have been proved, this Court will not have any jurisdiction to re-appreciate the facts so as to come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved by the department in an illegal or arbitrary manner. Kanchan 2025.05.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-5949-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-11803-2019 3 6. Further, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges alleged. It may be noticed that the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner is for abandoning the job and going abroad for his own benefit. The petitioner remained absent for a sufficiently long time and did not perform the duties. Keeping in view the said allegation proved, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No. 18916 of 2021 titled as Virender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 03.10.2013 to contend that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had more than ten years of service, the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. 7. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2023 (@ SLP(C) NO. 7645 OF 2018) titled as Union of India and Ors. versus Const Sunil Kumar, decided on 19.01.2023, the Court has no jurisdiction to intervene in the imposition of punishment even if the same is disproportionate but unless and until, the same is shockingly disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under :- “6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of Kanchan 2025.05.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-5949-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-11803-2019 4 judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. 6.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal imposed and ordering reinstatement of the respondent. 6.4 At this stage, it is required to be observed that even while holding that the punishment/penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, thereafter, no further punishment/penalty is imposed by the Division Bench of the High Court except denial of back wages. As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to Kanchan 2025.05.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-5949-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-11803-2019 5 the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable.” 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the job and went abroad for greener pasture, cannot be allowed to say that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon him is shockingly disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved so as to be interfered by this Court. Further, an Award can only be interfered with in case, there is a perversity in the Award qua the evidence or the facts brought on record. 9. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity either in the facts or the evidence qua the Award impugned. 10. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. April 30, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Kanchan 2025.05.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment