RSA No.709 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.709 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.11.2008 Vinod Kumar .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellant challenges the judgements and decrees dated 27.4.2006 and 6.8.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur and the Additional District Judge (Adhoc) cum Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the appellant respectively. The appellant was served with a charge sheet that as while working as a Registration Clerk he failed to point out cuttings in the Khasra Numbers that led to change in the description of the land in the original sale deed. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, the appellant was found guilty and after service of a show cause notice was dismissed from service vide order 9.5.2002. The appellant filed a suit challenging the legality of departmental proceedings, but after considering the dispute in its entirety, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court affirmed RSA No.709 of 2008 2 the findings returned by the trial Court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the enquiry officer has held that the vendor Harbhajan Singh, was primarily responsible for the cuttings in the sale deed. The punishment awarded to the appellant is, therefore, grossly disproportionate to the offence alleged. It is further submitted that as senior officers were not indicted or punished, the appellant should have been awarded a lesser punishment. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgements and decrees. The Courts below, have recorded concurrent findings of fact that departmental proceedings do not suffer from any error, whether of fact or of law. As held by the Courts below, departmental proceedings were conducted after following the procedure, prescribed under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any infraction in the procedure adopted by the respondents. As regards the submission that the punishment is grossly disproportionate, suffice it to say that cuttings in a sale deed is a serious offence. It alters the sale deed and as a result the nature of the property sold and whethe effected by the vendor or the vendee would not detract from the gravity of the appellant's offence. As concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any error of law and do not raise a substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed. 12.11.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE