CWP No.20744 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20744 of 2008 Date of decision 10.12.2008 Amar Singh .....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr.Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for the petitioner. K. Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to assail the result of the departmental inquiry and the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 2. The Constable working in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, was unavailable during the office hours, when an incident of theft took place in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Haryana Highway and Road Saftey, Karnal. At the regular departmental inquiry, the petitioner contended that he had a blemishless service and that he was briefly unavailable on account of his illness. At the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had the statement of seven witnesses to say that the petitioner and three other persons were absent from guard at about 2:00 PM and the theft had taken place only during the absence of the guard on duty. Under such circumstances, the Superintendent of Police have no difficulty in upholding the findings and that ordered the punishment of stoppages of two future annual increments. Before the appellate authority (the Inspector General of Police) and further appeal before the Director General of Police, the CWP No.20744 of 2008 -2- petitioner had merely reported that he was always regular in his duty and his temporarily absence ought not to be visited with the disproportionately severe punishment. 3. To the charge that the petitioner had been absent at the hour of duty, there cannot be a justification that he was temporarily ill and therefore was absent. An employee specially a guard on duty cannot straight away, without obtaining leave be absent and if he was ill, there was a method in regimen to remain absent by applying for leave. If we therefore find that the finding of guilt was justified, the only residual issue for consideration would be whether the punishment awarded was disproportionate. The scope to judicial review is available only to intervene when the punishment meted is so grossly disproportionate to shock the judicial conscience so that a person could be relieved all such an abrasive punishment. We find that the stoppage of increments as ordered by the disciplinary authority falls outside the perimeter of judicial discretion to trample upon the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. 4. The writ petitioner, therefore, fails and accordingly dismissed. ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) JUDGE ( K. KANNAN) JUDGE 10.12.2008. A. Kaundal