CWP No. 18866 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No. 18866 of 2009 Date of decision :December 9, 2009 * * * * * Jai Pal Singh ............petitioner Versus Union Territory and others ...........respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * * HEMANT GUPTA, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 5.12.2008, whereby the order of punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect was maintained. The petitioner was charge sheeted on 25.12.2004 on the allegation of misconduct of extorting money from the truck drivers coming to the grain market. The petitioner is Head Constable whereas one Constable Anup Singh was also charge sheeted for the similar misconduct. Departmental authorities after regular CWP No. 18866 of 2009 [2] departmental enquiry conducted, passed an order on 16.9.2005 of punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority i.e Inspector General of Police. The revision also stands dismissed by Home Secretary vide order dated 13.12.2006. Still aggrieved the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal by moving an application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which has been dismissed vide an order impugned in the present petition. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Anup Singh, the co-delinquent has been inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments without permanent effect, in service, whereas, petitioner has been inflicted the punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. Since both delinquents were charged for the same misconduct by the similar charge sheet, the different punishments cannot be awarded to the petitioner and Anup Singh. We do not find any merit in the said argument. Anup Singh is a Constable, whereas petitioner is a Head Constable. Misconduct attributed is of extortion of money against both the delinquents. But petitioner being a senior official was expected to act with more diligence and better conduct rather than indulging in extortion of money along with a Constable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that findings recorded by the departmental authority are based upon no evidence. The said aspect has been considered in detail by the CWP No. 18866 of 2009 [3] Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had upheld the finding of misconduct after going through the enquiry file and the fact that the statement of the petitioner is discrepant before the enquiry officer and in the daily diary report. In exercise of power of judicial review, the Courts are to examine the decision making process. The petitioner was given liberty to cross-examine the witnesses and also opportunity to lead evidence in defence. Though he has cross- examined the witnesses produced by the Department but he has not produced any evidence in defence. The petitioner has been given show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report. The reply filed by the petitioner was considered. In this view of the matter, we do not find that there is any violation of the principles of natural justice in the decision making process which way warrant interference of this Court. In view of the said fact, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Present petition is hereby dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE December 9, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE