Dismissal of a probationer for on-duty intoxication is proportionate and does not require a formal departmental inquiry.

The petitioner, a bus driver appointed on a two-year probation period, was terminated from service on December 2, 2015.

The termination followed an incident on September 30, 2014, where he allegedly consumed liquor while on duty on the Jhalod-Jasdan route and abandoned the bus at Gondal.

A criminal case (No. 378/2015) was registered under the Prohibition Act, in which the petitioner was eventually acquitted.

The employer issued a show-cause notice and conducted disciplinary proceedings; however, the petitioner failed to produce medical evidence to support his defense that he had consumed medicine for sickness rather than liquor.

The Labour Court, Rajkot, in Reference (LCR) Case No. 49/2018, dismissed the employee's challenge against the termination.

Both the employee (seeking reinstatement) and the employer (challenging the same award in a cross-petition) moved the High Court.

1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the reference and confirming the punishment imposed by the employer.

2. Whether the punishment of termination was harsh and disproportionate to the charge of intoxication while on duty.

3. Whether the order of removal was legal despite being passed without a full-scale departmental inquiry, given the petitioner's probationary status.

The court applied the principles of industrial jurisprudence regarding the scope of judicial interference in disciplinary matters under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

It relied on Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar (2008) to establish that intoxication on duty is a serious misconduct for a driver.

It further utilized Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) and G.M. (Operations) S.B.I v. R. Periyasamy (2015) to define the limited scope of Article 226/227 in interfering with the "proportionality" of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the court.

The court reasoned that as the petitioner was on probation and had not completed the requisite period, he could not claim the procedural protections of a permanent employee.

Despite this, the employer followed principles of natural justice by issuing a show-cause notice and considering his reply.

The court found that driving a public transport bus under the influence of alcohol is a "serious misconduct" as it endangers the lives of passengers, making the penalty of removal commensurate with the offense.

It was observed that the petitioner failed to lead evidence to challenge the validity of the inquiry before the Labour Court.

Furthermore, the court clarified that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement, as the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings (preponderance of probabilities) differs from criminal trials (beyond reasonable doubt).

It held that the punishment of removal was not disproportionate given the gravity of the misconduct.

The court concluded that the Labour Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction and found no error of law or fact requiring interference under Articles 226 or 227.

All interim reliefs were vacated.