CWP No. 21153 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21153 of 2011 Date of Decision: 16.11.2011 Dharampal Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 and dated 1.8.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Administrative Judge. Further, a prayer has been made to issue directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and grant all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner joined as Peon on 19.5.1993 in the Judicial Department. In the year 2007, when the petitioner was posted at Guhla, he was served with a charge-sheet for making a false representation for transfer from Guhla to Kaithal on the ground that his wife had been advised bed rest for two months. The petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of enquiry report dated 27.5.2010 by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide order dated 20.8.2010. Thereafter, he preferred service appeal before this Court which was also dismissed CWP No. 21153 of 2011 -2- vide order dated 1.8.2011. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. He further argued that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate. He relied upon judgments reported in Hind Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Their workmen, AIR 1965 SC 917, Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P. and others, AIR 1983 SC 454, Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and others, 1987 AIR SC 2386, Ex. Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 417 and Charanjit Lamba v. Commanding Officer, Southern Command and others AIR 2010 SC 2462 in support of his contentions. 5. Respondent No.2 after proper enquiry while dismissing the petitioner from service had observed that the petitioner had been incorrigible employee throughout his service career. The petitioner had been absenting from duty without any intimation and was punished suitably every time. At two occasions, his annual grade increments had been stopped and at some occasions he was imposed fine. He also earned adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports in the past and even he was declined grant of first ACP Scale when it fell due to him on account of his bad service record. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed service appeal in this Court. The Administrative Judge dismissed the said appeal. It was observed that in one of his order dated 22.5.2002, the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra recorded that the delinquent used intemperate language in his CWP No. 21153 of 2011 -3- explanation and that his conduct was unbecoming of a subordinate. In another incident, the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra imposed a fine of Rs.200/- on the petitioner for being absent from duty. The relevant observations recorded by the Administrative Judge are as under:- “In another incident, vide order dated 11.12.2002, the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra imposed a fine of Rs.200/- for being absent from duty. Thereafter, the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in the ACR of the delinquent for the year 2002 against column; whether he wanted to keep the official or not, specifically recorded 'No'. In the ACR of the delinquent for the year 2005 against column; punctuality and regularity in attendance, the reporting officer recorded “average, had absented from duty twice.” It was also observed that he was still 'unfit for promotion'. Further, in the ACR for the year 2006, it was specifically recorded by the Reporting Officer that the delinquent official was disobedient, insubordinate and unwilling worker. His conduct is unbecoming of Government Official. Similar ACR is of the year 2007. It was below average.” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid observations of respondent No.2 and the Administrative Judge clearly spells out that the petitioner had not been performing satisfactorily at all. Rather, the work and conduct of the petitioner was below average and, therefore, keeping in view the CWP No. 21153 of 2011 -4- totality of the facts and circumstances, the order of dismissal could not be held to be unjustified. 7. Referring to the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to notice that these are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same are on individual fact situation involved therein. 8. No illegality or perversity could be said to be there in the orders impugned herein. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. November 16, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE