B.P.BAJANTHRI, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a legal heir of deceased Amrik Singh - Workman. While deceased-employee was working as Driver in the respondent-Corporation on 21.02.2002 he was under intoxication and he was not on duty (it was rest day). On the allegation of misconduct committed by him on 21.02.2002 following charges have been framed against him. "1. On 21.02.2002 under influence of liquor coming to Bus Stand, Patiala and indulging in bad behaviour with official working there and destroying the official record. 2. Missing of 262 kilo meters on 22.02.2002 and by way of absence from duty causing loss of Rs. 3370/- to the Corporation. 3. Creating bad image of the Corporation in the public and negligence in discharge of duty. 4. Misconduct."
(2.) In the disciplinary proceedings, the charges relating to item No. 2 to 4 were proved and item No. 1 was not proved. Based on the inquiry officer's finding the disciplinary authority punished the deceased-Amrik Singh by dismissing him from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 11.07.2003, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The same was rejected. Industrial dispute was raised On 22.10.2013, the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala upheld the order of termination. In the meanwhile deceased-Amrik Singh died on 02.09.2009. Consequently, legal heirs of the deceased employee-Amrik Singh presented the appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge No. 2 to 4 were alleged to have been proved. The deceased employee has served 12 years of service in the respondent-corporation. Deceased employee on 21.02.2002 was on rest day and he was not on duty. Therefore, alleged charge which has been proved in inquiry and imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges. It was further contended that the charges are very vague. Therefore, award dated 22.10.2013 is to be set aside.;