RSA No. 3722 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 3722 of 2008 Date of decision: March 27,2009 Raj Kumar son of Mool Chand ..Appellant. Versus The Food Corporation of India and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the appellant .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the appellant, for declaration to the effect that order dated 1.4.2000 dismissing him from service and the order dated 25/27.6.2001 rejecting his appeal and order, if any, passed in second appeal by the Zonal Manager of the respondents are illegal and against the rules of natural justice, null and void and that the plaintiff be restored all the consequential benefits along with interest which were with held under the garb of impugned orders, was dismissed. As per the averments in the suit, the appellant, who was working with respondents was served with a charge sheet vide memo. No. 9036 dated 21.5.1998 on the allegations that he failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and integrity and also remained absconding from duty with effect from 16.3.1996 to 31.3.1997 in an unauthorized manner without any prior permission. Plaintiff submitted his reply to the charge sheet denying the correctness of the allegations levelled against him. However, his reply was not found satisfactory. The Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a regular departmental inquiry against the plaintiff. The Inquiry Officer established the charges in respect of remaining absent from duty with effect from 16.3.1996 to 31.3.1997 against the RSA No. 3722 of 2008 2 plaintiff The plaintiff was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 1.4.2000. The statutory appeal filed by the plaintiff was also rejected vide order dated 25/27-6-2001. The plaintiff also averred that he filed second appeal to the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, (Hqrs.), New Delhi but no decision was communicated to him till the filing of the suit. It was further alleged in the suit that the impugned orders were passed illegally. Hence the suit. The suit was contested by the respondents. Apart from various legal objections, the respondents submitted on merits that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff under the rules for his willful absence from 16.3.1996 to 31.3.1997 in an unauthorized manner and without prior permission/ intimation of the competent authority and after inquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service with effect from 1.4.2000. It was again submitted that the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiff in accordance with law. It was also submitted that the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself. It was stated that the punishment awarded to the plaintiff was strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations of the authority. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After perusing the documents and evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006. Aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the District Judge, Karnal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.10.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding of fact that it has been established from the inquiry report that the plaintiff-appellant remained absent from duty without permission and the punishing authority passed the impugned order of dismissal after considering his reply and granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It was also found by the courts below that proper RSA No. 3722 of 2008 3 procedure was adopted as per the rules before terminating the services of the appellant on the ground of misconduct. In fact, the aforesaid findings of fact have not been challenged before me in this appeal and the only argument raised by the counsel for the appellant is that whether the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the appellant commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that punishment of dismissal awarded to the appellant on account of absence from duty be moulded into compulsory retirement by this Court. In Regional Manager, U.P. S.R.T.C. Etawah and others Versus Hoti Lal and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1462 (SC), it was held that the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct and the High Court while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. No doubt, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid case but in the instant case a perusal of the inquiry report which has been accepted by the punishing authority, appellate authority as well as reviewing authority, itself reveals that each and every piece of evidence was closely analyzed and scrutinized by the inquiry officer and he found that the charge against the appellant in respect of absence from duty was proved. The appellant failed to justify his absence from duty. The punishment was imposed after adopting due procedure. No violation of any rule is alleged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed cannot be held RSA No. 3722 of 2008 4 to be disproportionate to the gravity of charge of misconduct. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed March 27, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE