Judgment GEORGE MASIH, J. 1. The petitioner-workman challenges the award dated August 5, 2008 (Annexure-P-7) passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman. 2. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the inquiry held against the petitioner-workman by the respondent-bank is contrary to the principles of natural justice as the initiation of the inquiry itself is not based on any complaint. He submits that the evidence also which has been recorded during the inquiry proceeding was not recorded in the presence of the petitioner-workman, thereafter, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer is not based on the evidence on record. He further contends that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the defence evidence produced by the petitioner-workman and has totally overlooked the same. The proceedings before the Enquiry Officer were recorded in English whereas the petitioner-workman is only a Peon-cum-Frash and does not know English. Thus, the petitioner-workman has been deprived of his right of defence before the Enquiry Officer and the proceedings, therefore, stands vitiated. He further contends that the findings of the Labour Court based on those Eroceedings before the Enquiry Officer, cannot e sustained, and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 3. I have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh. It is not in dispute that no protest with regard to the recording of the evidence in English by the Enquiry Officer in the inquiry proceedings was made by the petitioner-workman or his representative, nor was it a ground in the claim statement before the Labour Court which was made by the petitioner-workman. Having not raised the same either before the Enquiry Officer or the Labour Court, the same cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the writ proceedings before this Court. The allegations against the petitioner-workman were that he had come to the main hall of the building of the head office where the Secretary of G.M.O. is seated, in a drunken state raised slogans, hurled abuses, derogatory remarks against the General Manager and displayed disorderly and indecent behaviour at the bank premises and thereafter, slipped away from the bank. The language used by the petitioner-workman is unparliamentary. and therefore, it would not be appropriate to reproduce the same. The language used by the petitioner-workman is unparliamentary. and therefore, it would not be appropriate to reproduce the same. Earlier in the morning, the petitioner-workman had reported for duty at Patiala (Mall Road) Branch at 9:45 a.m. and thereafter, marking his attendance in the attendance register for full day and had moved out of the Branch without the permission of the Manager (C/I). The charge-sheet having been issued, the petitioner-workman filed his reply to the same. 4. Not satisfied, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the competent authority and accordingly, inquiry was held against the petitioner-workman. The inquiry started on October 25, 1990 and concluded on March 26, 1991. During this period 16 dates were fixed by the Enquiry Officer. It has also come on record that on every date of hearing either the petitioner-workman in person or his duly authorised representative Shri Ashwani Sharma was present. Seven witness were examined on behalf of management and all these witnesses were cross-examined either by the petitioner-workman or by his authorised representative. The petitioner-workman also produced four defence witnesses and they were also cross-examined by the management. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner-workman guilty of the charges. A show cause notice dated May 18, 1991 along with copy of the inquiry report was given to the petitioner-workman wlierein the petitioner-workman was called upon to submit his reply and was also advised to avail the opportunity of personal hearing along with his representative, if any, to state his stand in person before the disciplinary authority on or before June 7, 1991 with prior permission. The petitioner-workman neither submitted his reply despite sufficient time given to him nor availed of the opportunity of personal hearing. Left ;with no option, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner-workman on the basis of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In this view of the matter, the assertions as made by counsel for the petitioner-workman that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with during the inquiry proceedings is misconceived. 5. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer is neither justified nor based on any evidence, also cannot be accepted. In this view of the matter, the assertions as made by counsel for the petitioner-workman that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with during the inquiry proceedings is misconceived. 5. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer is neither justified nor based on any evidence, also cannot be accepted. He contends that all the witnesses who had been produced by the Bank had not categorically stated that the petitioner workman was in drunken stage but has only stated that he appear to be in a drunken position. He further contends that no medical examination was conducted of the petitioner-workman which would prove whether he was drunken or not. He contends that although strict rules of Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to departmental proceedings and the Court can interfere where in an inquiry proceeding the findings are based on no evidence or the findings are perverse. This case cannot be said to be one of no evidence. The contention or petitioner-workman that he was not present at the head office building when the misconduct has been said to have been committed by the petitioner-workman, cannot be accepted. The witnesses produced by the management have stated that the petitioner workman was very much there. It has also come on record that they have stated that the petitioner-workman appear to be in drunken position. Two of the witnesses namely Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, P.W.2, and Shri Sunil Arora, P.W.4 have stated during the inquiry proceedings that they had heard the exact abuses hurled by the petitioner-workman which finds mention in the charge-sheet. All these go to show (i) that the petitioner-workman was present at the head office building, (ii) that he was in a state of drunkenness and (iii) most importantly he had hurled abuses using choicest of the abuses against the General Manager at that place. Clearly the findings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer is fully justified and based on evidence and therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 6. Discipline in any institution reflects the competence and sincerity of the workman. It not only shows the character of the employee but also reflects his dedication and respect for the institution and senior officers. 6. Discipline in any institution reflects the competence and sincerity of the workman. It not only shows the character of the employee but also reflects his dedication and respect for the institution and senior officers. The petitioner-workman who is a Peon-cum-Frash uses such unparliamentary language against none else than the General Manager of the Bank and that too in his office premises and this charge having been proved during the inquiry proceedings wherein no fault has been found does not deserve a lenient view. The punishment given to the petitioner workman is in accordance with the misconduct proved against him during the inquiry proceedings, and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed.