The court will not lightly interfere with the discretion of the disciplinary authority in imposing a penalty or punishment, unless the punishment is so disproportionate to the misconduct that no reasonable body of persons could come to a conclusion to impose such punishment.

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the judgment and order dated 13 January 2016 of the Industrial Court at Pune, whereby the Revision Application (ULP) No. 66 of 2014 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, confirming the judgment and order dated 30 July 2014 rendered by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune on Complaint (ULP) No.129 of 2008 whereby the petitioner’s complaint alleging unfair labour practice by the respondent also was rejected.

2. Briefly the facts are: It is the petitioner’s case that he was employed by the respondent-Pune Mahanagar Pariwahan Mahamandal Ltd. with effect from 30 November 1991 as a bus driver. He was a permanent employee with the respondent establishment working at the Swargate Bus Depot. On 19 April 2008 a chargesheet came to be issued to the petitioner in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner alleging a misconduct of an unauthorized absenteeism during the period 1 June 2007 to 31 May 2008. The petitioner filed his reply to the chargesheet. An enquiry officer was appointed. Perusal of the record indicates that complete opportunity was granted to the petitioner to participate in the inquiry proceedings as also of being represented before the Enquiry officer. There was no material whatsoever in the reply to justify the unauthorized absenteeism for the said period of 142 days. It also appears from the record that the reply to the chargesheet was not only dissatisfactory but depicted an arrogant approach of the petitioner. Also no documents like medical report, certificate of doctor, case papers of hospital, etc., were annexed to the petitioner’s reply to the chargesheet.

3. It also appears that when the disciplinary enquiry commenced on 4 June 2008, the petitioner remained absent, hence, the enquiry officer was required to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. The enquiry officer recorded evidence of Mr.Deokar, Senior Time Keeper-Swargate Bus Depot. The petitioner was also furnished with a copy of the evidence alongwith a letter dated 4 June 2008 of the enquiry Officer. Such letter also intimated the next date of inquiry which was fixed on 16 June 2008.

4. On 16 June 2008, the petitioner admitted that he had received all the notices however, he stated that he could not attend the enquiry due to personal difficulties. The Enquiry Officer in good faith and in order to afford another opportunity to the petitioner, so as to adhere to the principles of natural justice, adjourned the enquiry proceedings. However, the petitioner again did not turn up on the adjourned date of hearing. Ultimately the Enquiry Officer was required to close the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer rendered his findings recording that the charges as levelled against the petitioner on his unauthorised absenteeism for 142 days had stood proved in the enquiry proceedings. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, after examining the record of the enquiry proceedings, by following the lawful procedure, issued a show cause notice dated 14 July 2008 to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner as to why a punishment of termination from service be not imposed on him. The show cause notice, however, was returned with the postal remark “addressee left”, as the petitioner had failed to communicate the changed address to the respondent. In these circumstances, with no other alternative, the respondent issued an order dated 6 September 2008 dismissing the petitioner from its services. The said order was also displayed on the notice board of the respondent establishment. It however appears from the record, that the petitioner received the termination order on 23 September 2008, which was when, for the first time he informed the respondent of his new address.

5. In the above circumstances, being aggrieved by the termination of his services, the petitioner approached the Labour