ORDER

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the award dated 17.01.2023 (pronounced on 21.04.2023) passed by the Labour Court, whereby the terms of the reference have answered in favour of the respondent and the punishment order dated 19.08.2014 has been set aside. 02. Vide order dated 19.08.2014, Executive Engineer, O & M, Madhya Pradesh Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Indore imposed punishment of one increment without cumulative effect upon the respondent as a minor punishment in pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 26.06.2014.

03. The respondent filed a reply to the show-cause notice dated 05.08.2014, which was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and accordingly, the above punishment was imposed. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2015. Thereafter, he raised the an industrial dispute before the Labour Court that the punishment of stoppage of one increment is not valid.

04. Learned Labour Court found that the services of the respondent are governed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (in short Rules of 1963) and as per Rule 12, withholding of increment for a period of one year is a major punishment which could not have been imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry, therefore, the punishment is unsustainable and set aside the same by directing the petitioner to grant all the benefits to the respondent by restoring one increment. Hence, present petition is before this Court.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice, in which he admitted that due to overwork, he could not send the record of employee for pay fixation. In appeal also, he took a ground that he was overworked because of which record could not be supplied within time. Since he has admitted his guilt, therefore, there was not need to conduct a departmental enquiry, hence, the punishment was imposed.

06. The order of punishment dated 19.08.2014, which is not filed as annexure but the same is produced before this Court, according to which the respondent was not punished upon his admission his guilt, but it was imposed as his reply was not found satisfactory. Looking to the misconduct and reply submitted by the respondent, the disciplinary authority thought it appropriate to impose a minor punishment i.e. stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect but the same is major misconduct as per the Rules of 1963.

07. Admittedly, stoppage of one increment is a major punishment. Sub- rule (4) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1963 says that no punishment shall be imposed on an employee unless proved guilty of misconduct in an enquiry conducted in the following manner:-

"(a) The manager or other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall give to the employee a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the mis- conduct charged and the circumstances appearing against him and requiring his explanation;

(b) The employee shall be given for submitting his explanation a period of at least 24 hours if he is charged with a minor misconduct and at least 72 hours if he is charged with major misconduct;

(c) An employee shall be allowed to defend by himself or the representative of employees, if he so desires;

(d) Except in cases where he admits the charge levelled against him the employee shall be permitted to produce witnesses in his defence and cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests;

(e) The substance of the evidence shall be recorded and read over;

(f) An order of punishment shall be in writing and shall be issued over the signature of the manager or other officer authorised under standing order (1) (a). A copy of the order passed awarding the punishment shall be given to the employee;

(g) In case of an employee other than the one belonging to the cle