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*