IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.519 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 13, 2011. Sukhwinder Singh .....Petitioner versus The Punjab and Haryana High Court and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.B.Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is working as a Malkhana Nazir in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. He is aggrieved by the enquiry report dated 1.9.2007 (Annexure P-8) and the order dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure P-11) passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, imposing punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of Kapurthala Sessions Division whereby his appeal has been allowed in part and after holding him guilty of the misconduct, the punishment has been reduced from stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect to the stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. C.W.P.No .519 of 2011 2 The petitioner had joined the service in Subordinate Courts on 1st December, 1983. He was charge-sheeted with the allegation that he got executed a sale deed on 2nd November, 1999 in his favour in respect of the immovable property without seeking prior permission of the competent authority. The reply to the charge-sheet having been found unsatisfactory, a regular departmental enquiry was held by the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, who vide the enquiry report dated 1st September, 2007, concluded as follows:- “.......it is transpired that the delinquent official has failed to disclose the acquisition of source of income for payment of sale consideration of his share to the vendor. The delinquent official Sukhwinder Singh got the sale deed dated 2.11.1999 executed and registered without seeking prior permission of competent authority. He has also failed to disclose the source of income from which the land was purchased by him. He is also held to have acquired ownership as well as possession of landed property beyond his own source of income......” The District and Sessions Judge, Kapurthala issued a show cause notice; considered the petitioner's reply and thereafter passed a self- speaking order dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure P-11) imposed major penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. On a departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of Kapurthala Sessions Division vide order dated 13th August, 2010 has held as follows:- C.W.P.No .519 of 2011 3 “.......After hearing learned counsel for the parties and the facts and dates brought before me, it is an admitted fact that the land in question was purchased by the father and uncle of the appellant in the year 1981 from one Baldev Singh and the possession was also taken over by them at the relevant time. Obviously, the sale consideration was made by the vendees to the vendor in the year 1981 itself when the agreement to sell was entered into in the year 1981 itself. However, the vendees, namely, Surjit Singh (uncle of the appellant) and Randhir Singh (father of the appellant) did not execute any sale deed in the year 1981 which was executed on 2.11.1999 in pursuance of the decree passed by the learned trial Court in the suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell by the legal heirs of both the vendees after their demise. In this situation, proprietary rights of the land in question upon the appellant by way of succession after the death of his father, therefore, no money transaction was exchanged by the appellant with the vendor-Balbir Singh. In this circumstances, the appellant cannot be said to have committed any corruption.....” The Hon'ble Administrative Judge in the light of these observations, has reduced the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments to the stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is vehemently urged that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the nature of the allegations proved against him and thus, interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is called for. C.W.P.No .519 of 2011 4 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length I do not find any ground to tinker with the impugned orders or the nature of punishment. In my considered view, the petitioner has been held guilty of two charges, namely, non-disclosure of the known source of income to pay the sale consideration as well as non-seeking of prior permission of the competent authority for acquiring the immovable assets. Both the charges have been duly proved by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. In the backdrop of the proven charges establishing gross violation of the Conduct Rules applicable to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect is excessive or disproportionate punishment. Dismissed. January 13, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE