A.P. Chowdhri, J. - (1.) Hardial Singh, respondent No. 1 was appointed as a conductor in the Punjab Roadways by the General Manager by order Annexure P-2 dated 24.1.1974 on temporary basis. On 6.9.76, the said respondent was on duty as Conductor in Bus No. 7484 on Route No. 31 and it was found that he had not issued tickets to some passengers though he had collected the fare from them. He was charge-sheeted and a regular enquiry held through the Traffic Manager. The Enquiry Officer held that the conductor had issued tickets to five passengers on seeing the checking staff but had not issued tickets to two other passengers though he had collected the fare from them. The respondent was thus held guilty by the Enquiry Officer. On an application made by the respondent, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana. The Labour Court by its award Annexure P-l dated January 16, 1981 held the finding of the Enquiry Officer unexpectionable but the punishment of removal imposed on him to be disproportionate to the nature of the charge. In this view of the matter, the labour court set aside the order of removal and directed that the respondent shall report for duty within 10 days of the date of the award.
(2.) The State of Punjab through the General Manager has challenged the aforesaid award of the Labour Court and the principal stand of the petitioner is that in the nature of things, the charge of embezzlement is a very serious matter and it is not a question of the amount of money involved in respect of which embezzlement had been committed. Even the Labour Court itself had found that the respondent himself admitted having failed to issue tickets to the passengers concerned. The charge was brought home against the respondent and there was thus no case for interference in the matter of punishment imposed by the General Manager.
(3.) I find myself in entire agreement with the stand of the petitioner. In the facts of the present case, however, the petitioner was reinstated as far back as April 6,1981. This was so stated before the motion Bench by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as noted in the order dated December 10, 1981.1 am not inclined to dislodge the petitioner after the lapse of so many years. It seems there has been no complaint against the respondent since the aforesaid incident of 6.9.1976. In the peculiar facts and circumstances while agreeing with the broad stand of the petitioner that in matters involving embezzlement, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court should not have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Department, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage and the writ petition is disposed of in these terms. Ordered accordingly.;