CWP-13781 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (222) Nachhattar Singh Union of India CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the (Annexure P Labour Court whereby, the reference has been answered against the petitioner/workman, as well as the 29.02.2000 (Annexure respectively Tribunal, for adjudication : 13781-2012 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Nachhattar Singh Versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondents-Union of India. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Central Govt. Industrial Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’) whereby, the reference has been answered against the petitioner/workman, as the order dated 27.07.2000 (Annexure P 29.02.2000 (Annexure P-3), passed by the respondent respectively. The following is the reference, which was sent to the learned Tribunal, for adjudication :- “Whether Shri Nachhattar Singh, EDBPM is a workman or not, if so, action of the Management of Supd. of Po Offices (M) Division, 1 Ludhiana in awarding the punishment of removal from service to Shri Nachhattar Singh son of Shri Ishwar Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?” 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13781-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.08.2025 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel Union of India. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the award dated 29.10.2010 passed by the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’) whereby, the reference has been answered against the petitioner/workman, as order dated 27.07.2000 (Annexure P-2), and order dated , passed by the respondents No.2 and The following is the reference, which was sent to the learned “Whether Shri Nachhattar Singh, EDBPM is a workman or not, if so, action of the Management of Supd. of Po Offices (M) Division, 1 Ludhiana in awarding the punishment of removal from service to Shri Nachhattar Singh son of Shri Ishwar Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of award dated 29.10.2010 cum- (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), whereby, the reference has been answered against the petitioner/workman, as and order dated 2 and 3, The following is the reference, which was sent to the learned “Whether Shri Nachhattar Singh, EDBPM is a workman or not, if so, action of the Management of Supd. of Post Offices (M) Division, 1 Ludhiana in awarding the punishment of removal from service to Shri Nachhattar Singh son of Shri Ishwar Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.23 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13781 2. affording due opportunity of hearing principles of nature justice, has passed the order of dismissal from the service, and answered the reference against the petitioner/workman. 3. has never supported the case of embezzlement against the petitioner, and despite that, the Enquiry Officer concerned, held the petitioner guilty and this aspect was not appreciated by the lea it goes to the root of the matter, and demolishes the entire case of the Management. is totally opaque and no effective opportunity of hearing was affo petitioner/workman. 4. India, while due procedure was complied with, before pass further submits that the petitioner was duly served the chargesheet. However, the petitioner/workman opted not to Enquiry Officer concerned, has conducted the enquiry, and gave nume opportunities to the petitioner/workman. However, the latter failed to join the enquiry proceedings. found guilty of embezzlement, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the m 5. counsel for the parties concerned, let us have a glimpse on the facts, which there is no wrangle between the parties concerned. 13781-2012 (O&M) Learned Tribunal finds that the disciplinary authority after affording due opportunity of hearing, and even after complying all the principles of nature justice, has passed the order of dismissal from the service, answered the reference against the petitioner/workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has never supported the case of embezzlement against the petitioner, and despite that, the Enquiry Officer concerned, held the petitioner guilty and this aspect was not appreciated by the learned Tribunal it goes to the root of the matter, and demolishes the entire case of the Management. He further submits that procedure adopted by the Management, is totally opaque and no effective opportunity of hearing was affo petitioner/workman. No other argument was advanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent , while supporting the award passed by the due procedure was complied with, before pass further submits that the petitioner was duly served the chargesheet. However, the petitioner/workman opted not to file any Enquiry Officer concerned, has conducted the enquiry, and gave nume opportunities to the petitioner/workman. However, the latter failed to join the enquiry proceedings. Finally, he submits that the petitioner/workman was found guilty of embezzlement, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the misconduct, and no interference is required by this Court. Before embark upon the submissions, so made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, let us have a glimpse on the facts, which there is no wrangle between the parties concerned. 2 that the disciplinary authority after , and even after complying all the principles of nature justice, has passed the order of dismissal from the service, answered the reference against the petitioner/workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has never supported the case of embezzlement against the petitioner, and despite that, the Enquiry Officer concerned, held the petitioner guilty and this rned Tribunal, in its right perspective, as it goes to the root of the matter, and demolishes the entire case of the procedure adopted by the Management, is totally opaque and no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the No other argument was advanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Union of supporting the award passed by the learned Tribunal, submits that due procedure was complied with, before passing the order of dismissal. He further submits that the petitioner was duly served the chargesheet. However, file any reply to the said chargesheet. The Enquiry Officer concerned, has conducted the enquiry, and gave numerous opportunities to the petitioner/workman. However, the latter failed to join the Finally, he submits that the petitioner/workman was found guilty of embezzlement, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal is isconduct, and no interference is required by this Court. Before embark upon the submissions, so made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, let us have a glimpse on the facts, qua which there is no wrangle between the parties concerned. that the disciplinary authority after , and even after complying all the principles of nature justice, has passed the order of dismissal from the service, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has never supported the case of embezzlement against the petitioner, and despite that, the Enquiry Officer concerned, held the petitioner guilty and this , in its right perspective, as it goes to the root of the matter, and demolishes the entire case of the procedure adopted by the Management, rded to the Union of , submits that ing the order of dismissal. He further submits that the petitioner was duly served the chargesheet. However, The rous opportunities to the petitioner/workman. However, the latter failed to join the Finally, he submits that the petitioner/workman was found guilty of embezzlement, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal is isconduct, and no interference is required by this Court. Before embark upon the submissions, so made by the learned qua MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.23 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13781 6. Department, 13.07.1990, and his wages were fixed at Rs.660/ to have temporarily misappropriated Rs.8,600/ Accounts, and permanently misappropriated Rs.1,400/ SB/RD Accounts standing at Dhaipai BO, in account with Jodhan SO : Sr. No. Category 1. 2. 3. 7. was ordered to be put off from the duty, and departmental action was initiated against him. Service) Rules, 1964 petitioner, on 30.07.1999 05.08.1999. never replied to the said chargesheet. appointed the Enquiry conducted the enquiry on various dates, and finally submitted the enquiry report, on 17.01.2000 been proved, which was levelled against the petitioner/ the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner, on 27.01.2000, and the response of the present petitioner petitioner/workman replied on 15.02.2000 13781-2012 (O&M) The petitioner/workman was engaged with the respondent/ , as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master , and his wages were fixed at Rs.660/ to have temporarily misappropriated Rs.8,600/ Accounts, and permanently misappropriated Rs.1,400/ SB/RD Accounts standing at Dhaipai BO, in account with Jodhan SO : Category Account No. Amount of Misappropriation RD 400355 Rs.200/ RD 400443 Rs.200/ SB 5101921 Rs.1,000/ Total = Rs.1,400/ Thereafter, vide order dated 02.02.19 was ordered to be put off from the duty, and departmental action was initiated against him. As per Rule 8 of Extra Departmental Service) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘EDAs’), the chargesheet was served on the petitioner, on 30.07.1999, which was received by the petitioner/workman, on 05.08.1999. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner never replied to the said chargesheet. Finally, the department concerned, has appointed the Enquiry Officer, on 17.08.1999. The Enquiry Officer, has conducted the enquiry on various dates, and finally submitted the enquiry report, on 17.01.2000 (Annexure R-2), with been proved, which was levelled against the petitioner/ the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner, on 27.01.2000, and the response of the present petitioner/workman was sought. petitioner/workman replied on 15.02.2000. After considering the reply, the 3 The petitioner/workman was engaged with the respondent/Postal as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), on , and his wages were fixed at Rs.660/- per month. He was alleged to have temporarily misappropriated Rs.8,600/- from different SB/RD Accounts, and permanently misappropriated Rs.1,400/- from the following SB/RD Accounts standing at Dhaipai BO, in account with Jodhan SO :- Amount of Misappropriation Date on which amount was misappropriated Rs.200/- 30.09.1997 Rs.200/- 12.04.1997 Rs.1,000/- 03/04.12.1995. Total = Rs.1,400/- 2.02.1999, the petitioner/workman was ordered to be put off from the duty, and departmental action was initiated epartmental Agents (Conduct and , the chargesheet was served on the , which was received by the petitioner/workman, on There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner has Finally, the department concerned, has Officer, on 17.08.1999. The Enquiry Officer, has conducted the enquiry on various dates, and finally submitted the enquiry with findings that all the charges have been proved, which was levelled against the petitioner/workman. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner, on 27.01.2000, and the response was sought. With this notice, the . After considering the reply, the Postal , on He was alleged from different SB/RD following Date on which amount was ed 03/04.12.1995. , the petitioner/workman was ordered to be put off from the duty, and departmental action was initiated (Conduct and , the chargesheet was served on the , which was received by the petitioner/workman, on has Finally, the department concerned, has Officer, on 17.08.1999. The Enquiry Officer, has conducted the enquiry on various dates, and finally submitted the enquiry findings that all the charges have copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner, on 27.01.2000, and the response With this notice, the . After considering the reply, the MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.23 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13781 Controlling Aut (Annexure R 8. DPS, (HQ), Punjab Circle, Chandigarh However, the petitioner has remained unsuccessful, as the appeal was rejected by DPS, (HQ), Punjab Circle, Chandigarh, on 27.07.2000 (Annexure R Thereafter, the petitioner/workman has raised the industrial dispute, by filing a claim petition, and that industrial dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh. The petitioner/workman has remained unsuccessful, as the reference was answere impugned award, which is under challenge, before this Court. 9. concerned, this Court has examined the impugned award as well as the other records. 10. the record, t opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner/workman, not only by serving the chargesheet, bu receiving the copy of enquiry report, the file his response concerned, finds the petitioner/workman guilty of embezzlement. 11. out any procedural illegality conducting the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer concerned. important to note here that reply to the said chargesheet 13781-2012 (O&M) Controlling Authority concerned, vide order dated 29.02.2000 (Annexure R-3), has removed the petitioner/workman, from the services. Thereafter, the petitioner/workman has preferred an appeal to DPS, (HQ), Punjab Circle, Chandigarh, against the or However, the petitioner has remained unsuccessful, as the appeal was rejected by DPS, (HQ), Punjab Circle, Chandigarh, on 27.07.2000 (Annexure R Thereafter, the petitioner/workman has raised the industrial dispute, by filing a claim petition, and that industrial dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh. The petitioner/workman has remained unsuccessful, as the reference was answered against him, by the learned Tribunal, through the impugned award, which is under challenge, before this Court. With the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties concerned, this Court has examined the impugned award as well as the other After analyses of the impugned award, instant petition as well as the record, this Court finds that due procedure was followed and even opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner/workman, not only by serving the chargesheet, but also after the enquiry report. receiving the copy of enquiry report, the petitioner/workman, was offered to file his response. The Enquiry Officer and the Controlling Authority concerned, finds the petitioner/workman guilty of embezzlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner/workman procedural illegality in framing the chargesheet, conducting the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer concerned. important to note here that the petitioner/workman, has not even filed the reply to the said chargesheet, and therefore, at this stage, the 4 hority concerned, vide order dated 29.02.2000 , has removed the petitioner/workman, from the services. the petitioner/workman has preferred an appeal to , against the order of dismissal. However, the petitioner has remained unsuccessful, as the appeal was rejected by DPS, (HQ), Punjab Circle, Chandigarh, on 27.07.2000 (Annexure R- Thereafter, the petitioner/workman has raised the industrial dispute, by filing a claim petition, and that industrial dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh. The petitioner/workman has remained unsuccessful, as the d against him, by the learned Tribunal, through the impugned award, which is under challenge, before this Court. With the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties concerned, this Court has examined the impugned award as well as the other After analyses of the impugned award, instant petition as well as his Court finds that due procedure was followed and even due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner/workman, not only by t also after the enquiry report. Even, after petitioner/workman, was offered to he Enquiry Officer and the Controlling Authority concerned, finds the petitioner/workman guilty of embezzlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner/workman, is unable to point in framing the chargesheet, as well as, conducting the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer concerned. It is equally r/workman, has not even filed the , and therefore, at this stage, the hority concerned, vide order dated 29.02.2000 the petitioner/workman has preferred an appeal to der of dismissal. However, the petitioner has remained unsuccessful, as the appeal was rejected -4). Thereafter, the petitioner/workman has raised the industrial dispute, by filing a claim petition, and that industrial dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh. The petitioner/workman has remained unsuccessful, as the d against him, by the learned Tribunal, through the With the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties concerned, this Court has examined the impugned award as well as the other After analyses of the impugned award, instant petition as well as due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner/workman, not only by fter petitioner/workman, was offered to he Enquiry Officer and the Controlling Authority , is unable to point in It is equally r/workman, has not even filed the , and therefore, at this stage, the MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.23 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13781 petitioner/workman, cannot take the plea, that he has not been given fair opportunity by the competent authority concerned. 12. support the case of the department/Management concerned, would not vitiate the charges, so framed against the petitioner/workman, since the other documentary evidence was found to be sufficient to establish that it was the petitioner/workman, who has committed the act of embezzlement. 13. report, as the said enquiry report has never been put to challenge by the petitioner/workman, though, he had ample oppo remain silent on this issue. Furthermore, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh, which requires any interference of this Court. 14. 15. August 21, 2025 Manpreet 13781-2012 (O&M) petitioner/workman, cannot take the plea, that he has not been given fair opportunity by the competent authority concerned. Furthermore, merely, because one of the complainant did not support the case of the department/Management concerned, would not vitiate the charges, so framed against the petitioner/workman, since the other documentary evidence was found to be sufficient to establish that it was the petitioner/workman, who has committed the act of embezzlement. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority, over the enquiry report, as the said enquiry report has never been put to challenge by the petitioner/workman, though, he had ample oppo remain silent on this issue. Furthermore, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned award dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal igarh, which requires any interference of this Court. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 5 petitioner/workman, cannot take the plea, that he has not been given fair opportunity by the competent authority concerned. se one of the complainant did not support the case of the department/Management concerned, would not vitiate the charges, so framed against the petitioner/workman, since the other documentary evidence was found to be sufficient to establish that it was the petitioner/workman, who has committed the act of embezzlement. as an Appellate Authority, over the enquiry report, as the said enquiry report has never been put to challenge by the petitioner/workman, though, he had ample opportunity. The petitioner opted to remain silent on this issue. Furthermore, this Court finds no perversity or award dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court igarh, which requires any interference of this Court. ntly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No petitioner/workman, cannot take the plea, that he has not been given fair se one of the complainant did not support the case of the department/Management concerned, would not vitiate the charges, so framed against the petitioner/workman, since the other documentary evidence was found to be sufficient to establish that it was the as an Appellate Authority, over the enquiry report, as the said enquiry report has never been put to challenge by the he petitioner opted to remain silent on this issue. Furthermore, this Court finds no perversity or 1), passed by Labour Court-I, MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.23 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment