Ehc Bir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 May, 2009

C.W.P No. 10711 of 2007                                      ::1::

      IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                                  C.W.P No. 10711 of 2007
                                  Date of decision : May 15, 2009.

EHC Bir Singh,

                                               ... Petitioner.
                            Versus

State of Haryana and others,
                                               ... Respondents.

                            ***

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***
Present : Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate
for Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
for the respondents.

***

1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 14.7.2006,

22.9.2006 and 28.3.2007 whereby he has been found guilty of the charge of

permitting an under trial in his custody to carry Rs.9700/-. Originally by the

first order dated 14.7.2006, the competent authority passed the order of

stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect. By the

subsequent orders mentioned above, the appeal and the revision of the

petitioner were rejected.

Counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that in fact the

petitioner had confiscated the amount of Rs.9700/- and handed it over to his
C.W.P No. 10711 of 2007 ::2::

superior. However, in the punishment order, the plea of the petitioner has

been recorded as follows :-

“….. The defaulter HC Bir Singh No.971/KNL has taken

main plea that at about 5/5.15 PM he had went to District

Jail, Karnal to hand over the accused to jail authorities.

The applicant was unaware of the rules/instructions as to

whether the accused was entitled to take cash amount to

Jail or otherwise. Therefore, at the time of search of the

accused, the applicant told Head Warden Ranbir Singh

No.2760 that there is a sum of Rs.9700/- in the custody

of the accused.”

Further, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show

any thing on the record whereby the plea of the petitioner regarding handing

over the money to his superior has been established.

It is well known that judicial review in such matters is

extremely restricted. In the case of Union of India and another vs

S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as

follows :-

“…. The scope of judicial review in the matter of

imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary

proceedings, is very limited. The Court can interfere

with the punishment only if it finds the same to be

shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be

proved. In such a case, the Court is to remit the matter to

the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the

punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid
C.W.P No. 10711 of 2007 ::3::

delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty……”

I have not been able to persuade myself that the action of the

respondents is perverse or shockingly disproportionate. Consequently, this

writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

May 15, 2009                                 ( AJAY TEWARI )
 `kk'                                             JUDGE