G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE legal question that arises in the present case is: Whether the employees who were similarly chargesheeted for the same misconduct can be treated differently by the employer while imposing punishment once they have been found guilty of the said charge in the enquiry proceedings?
(2.) THE deceased -workman, namely, Jagjit Singh has been denied the relief vide the award under challenge dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure P16) on account of the fact that fraud had been played by him for making payment of less amount to the tune of Rs. 2000/ - and that he had tampered with the said entry by first writing Rs. 3458/ - and thereafter, erasing the same and fresh entry was made showing the entry as Rs. 5458/ - in the way register. The deceased -workman who was working as Junior Assistant with the respondent No. 2 -Corporation since 28.09.1971, while posted in the cash branch, on 12.06.1995, was to make payment of Rs. 5458.65 to Ranjit Singh, Conductor. As per the chargesheet, he, in connivance with Gurpal Malhotra, Sr. Assistant and Surinder Singh, Junior Cashier, entered an amount of Rs. 3458/ - and made payment to the said employee of the less amount and thereafter, changed the amount to Rs. 5458/ -. In view of the cuttings made, he was chargesheeted on 06.10.1995. On 12.03.1998 (Annexure P6), the charges against Gurpal Malhotra, Senior Assistant, dated 10.10.1995 were withdrawn. Surinder Singh, Assistant Cashier, was also chargesheeted on 10.10.1995 for the same misconduct and an enquiry was also conducted against him by the same Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the said enquiry report, the Managing Director of the Corporation held that he was guilty of financial impropriety which has directly resulted in the fraud and directed him to be placed at the initial grades of his pay scale of his post. Relevant portion of the punishment order, passed on 28.05.1998 (Annexure P7), reads as under: Considering all the facts of the case, I am of the view that Shri Surinder Singh, Asstt. Cashier entered/booked the expenditure of Rs. 5458/ - even though he was aware that the payment of Rs. 3458/ - was actually made to Shri Ranjit Singh conductor F -83 of Chandigarh depot. Therefore, he is also responsible for making less payment of Rs. 2000/ - to Shri Ranjit Singh conductor No. F -83. In view of this, he deserves for strict punishment in the instant case. However, the statement of main witness in this case clearly indicates that Shri Surinder Singh, Asstt. Cashier has not committed any fraud with him and he was not connived with other delinquent Shri Jagjit Singh, Jr. Assistant, Shri Surinder Singh, Asstt. Cashier, however, is guilty of financial impropriety which may have directly resulted in fraud. Considering all the facts of the instant case, the gravity of the charges, I order that Shri Surinder Singh Asstt. Cashier be placed in the initial grades of his pay -scale of his post. He will not be paid any thing over an above the subsistence allowance already paid to him during the period of his suspension.
(3.) HOWEVER , in the case of the petitioner, on the basis of the enquiry report dated 03.01.1997, which was also conducted by the same official, namely, Shri Sat Pal Kapil, Sectional Officer, the punishment of termination of service was passed on 21.05.1998 (Annexure P8). Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Chairman of the Corporation on 18.08.1999. On account of the said dismissal order, the demand notice dated 22.05.2000 was served taking the plea that charges upon Gurpal Malhotra were withdrawn on 12.03.1998 and Surinder Singh was given punishment by reducing his pay -scale to the initial grades whereas the deceased -workman was given the punishment of dismissal from service on the same charge. The said contents were not denied by the Management being a matter of record and in the written statement, filed before the Labour Court, it was only averred that all the concerned officials were chargesheeted and were punished according to their offences as proved against them and the deceased -workman was guilty of gross misconduct and was fully responsible for the short payment. In the evidence also, the workman specifically averred regarding the said fact. The workman examined himself apart from Nam Chand, Cashier as WW1 and Raj Kumar as AW2. The Labour Court, as noticed above, declined the reference on the ground that there was charge of misappropriation and therefore, the enquiry office had evaluated the evidence and on scrutiny of charges, gave the report and the punishment order was reasoned and there was no irregularity or illegality in the said order.;