Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 December, 2008

C.W.P. No.21645 of 2008                                              -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                             C.W.P. No.21645 of 2008
                                             Date of Decision:23.12.2008

Baldev Singh                                           ............... Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Punjab and others                             ............Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:      Mr. A.S. Khaira, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

1.            Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
              judgment? Yes
2.            To be referred to the Reporters or not?   Yes
3.            Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

K.KANNAN J.

              ****

Petitioner, who was working as Inspector, Bikhi Cooperative

Agricultural Service Society Ltd. had been charged as being lax in

supervision that resulted in embezzlement of some of his subordinate

functionaries in the Society between the period 09.10.2000 to 08.09.2004.

The disciplinary authority found him guilty of the charges after holding

departmental enquiry by making a note of dissent from the Enquiry Officer,

who had exonerated him. The petitioner was visited with punishment of

stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The

correctness of the order was challenged by an appeal to the Government

before the Department of Cooperation and the Appellate Authority

confirmed the finding regarding the guilt as well as the punishment meted

out to him.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not personally

responsible for embezzlement and the finding of the Enquiry Officer

exonerating him ought not to have been interfered with. His further
C.W.P. No.21645 of 2008 -2-

contention was that the punishment itself is excessive for his blemishless

service and his service record ought not to be blotted with any history of

adverse punishment suggesting dereliction of duty.

3. We have considered the order of the Registrar in making his

reasoning for differing with the Enquiry Officer. The Registrar has

particularly taken note of the fact that the report of the Enquiry Officer

revealed that although the petitioner could not be found guilty of connivance

with the persons who had committed the offence of embezzlement, he had

been definitely guilty of lack of vigilance. The Register had further noticed

that the amount of Rs.6,52,862/- that had been actually embezzled would not

have occurred if the petitioner had properly verified the accounts at the

relevant point of time between 09.10.2000 to 08.09.2004. The so-called

justification by the petitioner that he had verified the accounts of 687

members did not merit consideration when the ultimate result was that there

had been an embezzlement and he himself had not detected it. The

embezzlement came to light only when other Inspectors deputed by the

Assistant Registrar, detected the same holding that the Secretary and

Treasurer-cum-Salesman were responsible for such heinous acts.

4. The order of the Registrar which is impugned in the writ petition

is a well considered one and the Appellate Authority also had the benefit of

the well reasoned order of the disciplinary authority before it could properly

analyze the whole issue in the light of the petitioner’s own reasons for

assailing the report of the disciplinary authority. It has been held times

without number that the High Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 226,

will not interfere with findings of disciplinary authority in departmental

proceedings, except when there are involved serious inflections of the

procedure laid down by the relevant rules or when the rules of natural justice

had been breached either in the course of the enquiry or in the ultimate
C.W.P. No.21645 of 2008 -3-

decisional conclusion. We find no error to interfere with the decision of the

disciplinary authority.

5. Even as regards the quantum of punishment, the scope of judicial

review would extend only in cases of disproportionality of punishment to the

gravity of misconduct (vide UPSRTC Vs. Ram Kishan Arora (2007) 4 SCC

627). The punishment does not, in our view, seem capricious or excessive

to shock our judicial conscience. The employer needs to do what is best to

bring rectitude in his administration and we decline to interfere in the

punishment given to the petitioner.

4. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
December 23, 2008
Pankaj*