CWP No.4856 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4856 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 22-02-2011 Dharm Bir Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- None for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner impugns the order dated 21.1.2009 vide which he has been awarded punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with permanent effect. His appeal against the said order of inflicting such a punishment upon him has been dismissed. Charge against the petitioner is that he un-authorisedly cut down a mango tree which was adjoining his house and which belongs to the Government by raising a plea initially that the said tree was threat to his house. An inspection was got done on the complaint made by him regarding the said threat to his house but the competent authority opined that there was no such threat and declined the permission to cut the tree. The petitioner then clandestinely cut the tree and was caught red handed when he was loading the tree on the bullock cart and was about to dispose of the same in a saw mill. Inquiry was initiated against him and after affording an opportunity to him, the allegations were substantiated. Consequent thereto, the punishment of stoppage of four increments was inflicted upon him which was upheld in appeal. Aggrieved by the same, in the instant writ petition the CWP No.4856 of 2009 (O&M) 2 petitioner has agitated the matter to say that the punishment is harsh, that there was no material to substantiate the age of the tree and further that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner had caused any loss to the Government and various other such pleas. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner and this Court has perused the paper-book with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State who has referred to the proceedings of the inquiry officer to contend that there was neither any malice against the petitioner nor was any lapse made during the course of the proceedings before the inquiry officer. The law and the procedure having substantially been complied with there can be no grievance which the petitioner can make regarding these proceedings and consequent punishment. Upon due consideration and upon going through the averments made in the instant petition as also to the reply to the corresponding paras of the writ petition and other material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not raise any substantial plea which can be answered in a writ petition. The allegations against him having found to be correct has invited a punishment and merely because the punishment according to the petitioner is harsh would not necessarily constitute a ground for interference in a writ petition. The Court cannot substitute its opinion and prefer it to that of the disciplinary authority. There is no infirmity in the impugned order which is evident from the averments made in the reply to the petition. Hence, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. February 22, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge