CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19375 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 28,2011 Matloob Khan .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Sihota, Sr.Advocate with Mr. B. R. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Though the petitioner had impugned the proceedings and the order terminating his services but notice of motion was issued in this case only qua quantum of punishment. The counsel for the petitioner has accordingly been heard on this limited aspect. To appreciate his submission, it would be appropriate to notice the facts in brief. The petitioner, who joined as a Lecturer of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19375 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Commerce in 1977, had 27 years of service to his credit, when he met with present adversaries in his life. In fact, the petitioner was considered for appointment on the post of Principal in the year 1988. Suddenly, however, he was suspended on 13.10.2004 and was issued charge sheet on 10.1.2005, containing 9 charges. The departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Enquiry Officer was detailed, who afforded opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not participate in the enquiry. On the basis of findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was removed from the service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 27.5.2006 and thereafter he has challenged the proceedings and the punishment through the present writ petition. In the reply filed it is stated that instead of teaching the students, the petitioner indulged in extraneous activities, which were detrimental to the discipline and the interest of students. Somuch so, the petitioner had made a criminal complaint against the Chairman and Members of the Committee, besides filing complaint before Vice Chancellor of the University, which was totally baseless. The petitioner had even refused to obey the orders of the Managing Committee. He had filed a criminal complaint against the Managing Committee, which after investigation was cancelled. Accordingly, the respondents have justified the action taken against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would primarily submit that conduct of the petitioner was not such which warranted the extreme penalty of termination and while doing so, the respondents completely ignored the prolonged service of 27 years rendered by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19375 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: petitioner. The counsel has also referred to some of the judgments in this regard, whereby order of dismissal was converted to compulsory retirement. The counsel for the petitioner seeks support from Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007 (1) RSJ 45. This was a case of absence from duty where the Court had converted the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement. Ratio in this case may not be of much relevance. Counsel would also refer to Om Kumar and others Vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3689, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Courts play secondary role while exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters and in regard to quantum of punishment, which can be interfered with on a limited ground based on Wednesbury's principles. As correctly understood, Wednesbury's principle is that a decision will be said to be unreasonable if it is based on wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant consideration and if it has ignored a very relevant material, which it should have taken into consideration or it is so absurd that no sensible person could ever have reached it. Only reference has been made to these judgements. The counsel otherwise could not point out if any irrelevant material has been taken into consideration or any relevant material was ignored while imposing penalty on the petitioner. His submission is only that long service of the petitioner was not taken into consideration while imposing the penalty. There is nothing on record to suggest that the service of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. It can not be said that punishment is so absurd that no sensible person could CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19375 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: ever have reached it. Even on the basis of principle of proportionality, it is not possible to hold that punishment awarded to the petitioner is harsh or strikingly disproportionate to call for any interference. The question of choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and decision of the punishing authority. No doubt, the punishment should not be unduly harsh and vindictive. It should also not be disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct as to shock the conscious. If the punishment awarded is such, which is an outrageous defiance of logic, then it would not be immune from correction as a part of judicial review. As is well known, judicial review is not generally directed against the decision but against the decision making process. Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review. (See Council of Civil Service Unions Vs. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL)). Thus, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety are the three main grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. As a part of further development, principle of proportionality has also been recognized as valid ground for judicial review. Penalty disproportionate to the gravity or the misconduct may be termed violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though the submissions have been made generally on the ground that the punishment is harsh without in any manner indicating how it could be termed as harsh or disproportionate. From the facts as noted above, it can not be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is harsh in any manner. The petitioner had been acting in a most irresponsible manner in filing CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19375 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: criminal complaints and petitions against the Management. He has been indulging in activities of such a nature, which were capable of spreading indiscipline in the education institution. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegation made, it is not possible to view that the punishment is disproportionate, harsh or unreasonable. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction and would dismiss the same. March 28,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE