09.09.2025 GURSEWAK SINGH GURSEWAK SINGH v. CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND ANOTHER CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND ANOTHER CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND
Case Details
LPA-1463-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 LPA-1463-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 09.09.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 09.09.2025 GURSEWAK SINGH GURSEWAK SINGH … Appellant (s) Versus CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND ANOTHER CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND ANOTHER CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING AND ANOTHER ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The appellant has impugned the judgment of the Single Bench The appellant has impugned the judgment of the Single Bench The appellant has impugned the judgment of the Single Bench The appellant has impugned the judgment of the Single Bench reby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 dated 01.04.2025 whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 reby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 dated 01.04.2025 whe challenging the award dated 26.03.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour challenging the award dated 26.03.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour challenging the award dated 26.03.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour challenging the award dated 26.03.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, has been allowed. Court, U.T., Chandigarh, has been allowed. 2. workman submits that although Learned counsel for the appellant-workman submits that although workman submits that although Learned counsel for the appellant llant had remained absent from service as he was unwell, but he had the appellant had remained absent from service as he was unwell, but he had llant had remained absent from service as he was unwell, but he had llant had remained absent from service as he was unwell, but he had been taken back in service unconditionally by respondent No.1 and therefore, the been taken back in service unconditionally by respondent No.1 and therefore, the been taken back in service unconditionally by respondent No.1 and therefore, the been taken back in service unconditionally by respondent No.1 and therefore, the Labour Court had rightly held that the appellant’s services had been terminated Labour Court had rightly held that the appellant’s services had been terminated Labour Court had rightly held that the appellant’s services had been terminated Labour Court had rightly held that the appellant’s services had been terminated ught not to have set aside the award of the Labour illegally. The Writ Court ought not to have set aside the award of the Labour ught not to have set aside the award of the Labour illegally. The Writ Court o Court. 3. 4. Heard. Heard. It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as a Conductor It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as a Conductor It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as a Conductor It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as a Conductor by respondent No.1 on 11.08.1982. He remained absent from duty from by respondent No.1 on 11.08.1982. He remained absent from duty from by respondent No.1 on 11.08.1982. He remained absent from duty from by respondent No.1 on 11.08.1982. He remained absent from duty from granted medical leave on account of 19.10.1988 to 01.11.1988 after he had been granted medical leave on account of granted medical leave on account of 19.10.1988 to 01.11.1988 after he had been . However, he did not resume his duty on 01.11.1988 and back ailment. However, he did not resume his duty on 01.11.1988 and . However, he did not resume his duty on 01.11.1988 and . However, he did not resume his duty on 01.11.1988 and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Communications sent to departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Communications sent to departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Communications sent to departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Communications sent to SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.24 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 LPA-1463-2025 the appellant were received back with the report that he was ‘out of station’. The the appellant were received back with the report that he was ‘out of station’. The the appellant were received back with the report that he was ‘out of station’. The the appellant were received back with the report that he was ‘out of station’. The appellant did not participate in the proceedings despite publications in three appellant did not participate in the proceedings despite publications in three appellant did not participate in the proceedings despite publications in three appellant did not participate in the proceedings despite publications in three - newspapers in March, 1989 and consequently, he was proceeded against ex- newspapers in March, 1989 and consequently, he was proceeded against newspapers in March, 1989 and consequently, he was proceeded against parte. The charge charge of absence from service without leave proved. The without leave was proved. The cause why his services be not appellant was issued notice asking him to show-cause why his services be not appellant was issued notice asking him to show appellant was issued notice asking him to show terminated. The submitted his joining report on 13.03.1991 The appellant indeed submitted his joining report on 13.03.1991 submitted his joining report on 13.03.1991 uties. He was allowed to stating that he was now cured and fit to resume his duties. He was allowed to stating that he was now cured and fit to resume his d stating that he was now cured and fit to resume his d join duty by the General Manager from 10.04.1991 as the appellant had stated join duty by the General Manager from 10.04.1991 as the appellant had stated join duty by the General Manager from 10.04.1991 as the appellant had stated join duty by the General Manager from 10.04.1991 as the appellant had stated was served upon him only on that the show cause notice dated 06.04.1990 was served upon him only on was served upon him only on that the show cause notice dated 21.03.1991. Thereafter, the Divisional Manager called him for personal hearing 21.03.1991. Thereafter, the Divisional Manager called him for personal hearing 21.03.1991. Thereafter, the Divisional Manager called him for personal hearing 21.03.1991. Thereafter, the Divisional Manager called him for personal hearing on 03.02.1993 and after considering the reply preferred by the appellant, the on 03.02.1993 and after considering the reply preferred by the appellant, the on 03.02.1993 and after considering the reply preferred by the appellant, the on 03.02.1993 and after considering the reply preferred by the appellant, the . The Divisional Manager terminated his services vide order dated 15.03.1993. The Divisional Manager terminated his services vide order dated 15.03.1993 Divisional Manager terminated his services vide order dated 15.03.1993
Legal Reasoning
appellant had challenged the order dated 15.03.1993 by preferring an appeal appellant had challenged the order dated 15.03.1993 by preferring an appeal appellant had challenged the order dated 15.03.1993 by preferring an appeal appellant had challenged the order dated 15.03.1993 by preferring an appeal which was dismissed on 11.11.1993. In the meantime, the appellant had sent a which was dismissed on 11.11.1993. In the meantime, the appellant had sent a which was dismissed on 11.11.1993. In the meantime, the appellant had sent a which was dismissed on 11.11.1993. In the meantime, the appellant had sent a demand notice on 24.05.1993 and a reference was made to Labour Court on demand notice on 24.05.1993 and a reference was made to Labour Court on demand notice on 24.05.1993 and a reference was made to Labour Court on demand notice on 24.05.1993 and a reference was made to Labour Court on 11.01.1995. 5. The Labour Court, in its award while holding The Labou that the inquiry was while holding that the inquiry was Aand modified the punishment from fair and proper, invoked section 11-Aand modified the punishment from Aand modified the punishment from fair and proper, invoked section 11 termination of services to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, on termination of services to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, on termination of services to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, on termination of services to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, on the ground that the punishment of termination of service the ground that the punishment was disproportionate to f service was disproportionate to the misconduct. It also directed that the period of absence from duty be treated the misconduct. It also directed that the period of absence from duty be treated the misconduct. It also directed that the period of absence from duty be treated the misconduct. It also directed that the period of absence from duty be treated as leave without pay. However, the award of the Labour Court was challenged as leave without pay. However, the award of the Labour Court was challenged as leave without pay. However, the award of the Labour Court was challenged as leave without pay. However, the award of the Labour Court was challenged after by respondent No.1 by preferring writ petition. The Single Bench, after by respondent No.1 by preferring writ petition. The Single Bench, by respondent No.1 by preferring writ petition. The Single Bench, observing that the appellant had proceeded on unauthorized leave for almost 2 ½ observing that the appellant had proceeded on unauthorized leave for almost 2 ½ observing that the appellant had proceeded on unauthorized leave for almost 2 ½ observing that the appellant had proceeded on unauthorized leave for almost 2 ½ years and had offered no explanation for the same except for an unsubstantiated years and had offered no explanation for the same except for an unsubstantiated years and had offered no explanation for the same except for an unsubstantiated years and had offered no explanation for the same except for an unsubstantiated explanation of illness, had arrived at the conclusion that the appropriate explanation of illness, had arrived at the conclusion that the appropriate explanation of illness, had arrived at the conclusion that the appropriate explanation of illness, had arrived at the conclusion that the appropriate SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.24 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 LPA-1463-2025 such grave misconduct of prolonged absence from duty without punishment for such grave misconduct of prolonged absence from duty without such grave misconduct of prolonged absence from duty without such grave misconduct of prolonged absence from duty without leave, was dismissal from service. The Single Bench had set aside the award of leave, was dismissal from service. The Single Bench had set aside the award of leave, was dismissal from service. The Single Bench had set aside the award of leave, was dismissal from service. The Single Bench had set aside the award of the Labour Court while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the the Labour Court while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the the Labour Court while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the the Labour Court while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. C onst. Sunil Kumar 2023 SCC Online Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar 2023 SCC Online onst. Sunil Kumar 2023 SCC Online in exercise of powers wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that in exercise of powers wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that SC 56wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that the writ Court is empowered to modify the punishment if it is of judicial review, the writ Court is empowered to modify the punishment if it is the writ Court is empowered to modify the punishment if it is of judicial review, ed. The relevant found to be ‘strikingly disproportionate’ to the charges proved. The relevant found to be ‘strikingly disproportionate’ to the charges prov found to be ‘strikingly disproportionate’ to the charges prov extract of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:- extract of the judgement is reproduced hereunder: extract of the judgement is reproduced hereunder: In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while “6.2 xxx xxx In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on punishment of dismissal on the ground the ground that that it was it was disproportionate, disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As erved and held that only in an extreme case, where on the observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. 6.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that 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 the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be oportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. xxx” Xxx SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.24 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 LPA-1463-2025 6. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Single Bench for the We are in agreement with the judgment of the Single Bench for the We are in agreement with the judgment of the Single Bench for the We are in agreement with the judgment of the Single Bench for the reason that no worthwhile explanation has been put forth by the appellant for reason that no worthwhile explanation has been put forth by the appellant for reason that no worthwhile explanation has been put forth by the appellant for reason that no worthwhile explanation has been put forth by the appellant for absent from duty without leave for a period of almost 2 ½ years. In remaining absent from duty without leave for a period of almost 2 ½ years. In absent from duty without leave for a period of almost 2 ½ years. In absent from duty without leave for a period of almost 2 ½ years. In these circumstances, the termination of service of the appellant for absence for these circumstances, the termination of service of the appellant for absence for these circumstances, the termination of service of the appellant for absence for these circumstances, the termination of service of the appellant for absence for such an extended period, without sanctioned leave or any justifiable cause, such an extended period, without sanctioned leave or any justifiable cause, such an extended period, without sanctioned leave or any justifiable cause, such an extended period, without sanctioned leave or any justifiable cause, y disproportionate’ to the misconduct. We draw cannot be considered ‘shockingly disproportionate’ to the misconduct. We draw y disproportionate’ to the misconduct. We draw cannot be considered ‘shockingl Chennai Metropolitan support from the judgment of the Supreme Court inChennai Metropolitan support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in In Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108. In Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu that case respondent therein who was working as Junior Engineer in that case respondent the Chennai who was working as Junior Engineer in the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, had remained continuously Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, had remained continuously Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, had remained continuously Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, had remained continuously absent from duty without any intimation to the employer since 28.08.1995. On absent from duty without any intimation to the employer since 28.08.1995. On absent from duty without any intimation to the employer since 28.08.1995. On absent from duty without any intimation to the employer since 28.08.1995. On 01.04.1997 he had reported to duty with the medical certificate for his absence 01.04.1997 he had reported to duty with the medical certificate for his absence 01.04.1997 he had reported to duty with the medical certificate for his absence 01.04.1997 he had reported to duty with the medical certificate for his absence the period commencing 28.8.1995 to 31.03.1997. He was issued from duty for the period commencing 28.8.1995 to 31.03.1997. He was issued the period commencing 28.8.1995 to 31.03.1997. He was issued the period commencing 28.8.1995 to 31.03.1997. He was issued sheet and thereafter, was dismissed from service. The judgment of the the charge-sheet and thereafter, was dismissed from service. The judgment of the sheet and thereafter, was dismissed from service. The judgment of the sheet and thereafter, was dismissed from service. The judgment of the there was no past misconduct of desertion/absence and, High Court holding that there was no past misconduct of desertion/absence and, there was no past misconduct of desertion/absence and, High Court holding that sal from service for the first time therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service for the first time sal from service for the first time therefore, the punishment of dismis desertion/absenteeism was too harsh and disproportionate, was set aside by the desertion/absenteeism was too harsh and disproportionate, was set aside by the desertion/absenteeism was too harsh and disproportionate, was set aside by the desertion/absenteeism was too harsh and disproportionate, was set aside by the that dismissal for absence . It was held by the Supreme Court that dismissal for absence . It was held by the Supreme Court Supreme Court. It was held by the Supreme Court from duty without leave for almost 1 year and 7 months could not be held to be from duty without leave for almost 1 year and 7 months could not be held to be from duty without leave for almost 1 year and 7 months could not be held to be from duty without leave for almost 1 year and 7 months could not be held to be shockingly disproportionate of the misconduct shockingly disproportionate . The relevant extract of the misconduct. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- judgment is reproduced hereunder: 32.The
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel for the responden t has endeavoured hard to impress learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that the respondent had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail upon us that the respondent had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail upon us that the respondent had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail upon us that the respondent had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual nteeism” absenteeism” nteeism” nteeism” is absolutely unacceptable and, under is absolutely unacceptable and, under is absolutely unacceptable and, under is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining the obtaining the obtaining the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period 4 SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.24 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1463-2025 cipline but also made an with inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but also made an with inadequate reason had not only shown indis with inadequate reason had not only shown indis Such a conduct is not permissible and we are attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we are Such a conduct is not permissible and we are attempt to get away with it. inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no ow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely shadow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely ow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely shad attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate. disproportionate. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. 33. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, i Regard being had to h t was expected of him to maintain is official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as and ushers in indiscipline in an it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an it creates a concavity in the work culture it creates a concavity in the work culture organisation.” organisation 7. It is trite that although under Section 11 It is A the Tribunal/ Labour that although under Section 11-A the Tribunal/ Labour Court has the jurisdiction to modify the punishment imposed by the employer, Court has the jurisdiction to modify the punishment imposed by the employer, Court has the jurisdiction to modify the punishment imposed by the employer, Court has the jurisdiction to modify the punishment imposed by the employer, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and interference is warranted only such discretion must be exercised judiciously and interference is warranted only such discretion must be exercised judiciously and interference is warranted only such discretion must be exercised judiciously and interference is warranted only o the charge. It must record when punishment is wholly disproportionate to the charge. It must record when punishment is wholly disproportionate t when punishment is wholly disproportionate t reasons for arriving such a conclusion and mere expression that punishment is arriving at such a conclusion and mere expression that punishment is such a conclusion and mere expression that punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. The shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. The shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. The shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. The nless Industrial Courts cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the employer, unless Industrial Courts cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the employer, u Industrial Courts cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the employer, u there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Moreover, the Tribunal/ Labour there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Moreover, the Tribunal/ Labour there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Moreover, the Tribunal/ Labour there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Moreover, the Tribunal/ Labour Court cannot reduce punishment of a workman merely on compassionate Court cannot reduce punishment of a workman merely on compassionate Court cannot reduce punishment of a workman merely on compassionate Court cannot reduce punishment of a workman merely on compassionate grounds. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in grounds. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in grounds. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in grounds. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Utta The m Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: