IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1692 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 31, 2011. Jagmal Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.Marwaha, 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 aggrieved by the order dated 29th April, 2005 whereby the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect besides fine of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon him, as well as the order dated 17.8.2009 dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid punishment order. The impugned orders have been passed pursuant to the departmental action taken against the petitioner on the following allegations:- “1. On 2.8.2001 at the swimming pool, phase-VI, Mohali at the time of death of a child being present was acted carelessly. 2. You had been recommending children applications without approval of Coach. 3. Did not care to look into the equipment where there is safety or the safety measures well adopted. C.W.P.No .1692 of 2011 2 4. Tried to thrust your responsibility on SDO Building. 5. Did not care for water visibility and did not care regarding clean up of the water.” A regular enquiry was held in which the major charges including that of 'negligence' on the part of the petitioner and allowing the use of the Swimming Pool without looking into the safety measures were proved. The disciplinary authority gave a show cause notice, heard the petitioner in person and thereafter imposed the afore-stated punishment. The petitioner's appeal has also been turned down by the Appellate Authority after observing that the death of Karanbir Singh, a minor child, could be avoided, had the petitioner taken care of the safety measures being the Incharge of the Swimming Pool. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that no case is made out to interfere with by a writ Court in the above mentioned concurrent finding of fact or the quantum of punishment. The petitioner's contention that he was not at the spot when the occurrence took place, is inconsequential for the reason that being Incharge of the Swimming Pool, he was under an obligation to ensure that the Coach/Trainer/Guard remain at the spot to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. As per the finding of fact, the petitioner failed to maintain the ordinary standard of vigilance as expected from him. Dismissed. January 31, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE