IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 502 of 2004 Ramesh Chandra Gangwar …………..Petitioner Versus Authority, U.P. Co-operative Sugar Mills federation Ltd./Secretary, Department of Sugar Industry and Cane Development, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others. ……………..Respondents ……………………. Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Date: July 31, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.10.2001 passed by respondent No. 2 as well as the order passed by respondent 1 (Appellate Authority), contained in Annexure Nos. 11 & 14 respectively to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner remained under suspension with effect from 17.02.1999 to 16.10.2001. In the inquiry all the charges leveled against the petitioner were found proved and the disciplinary authority/respondent No. 2 imposed the punishment to the petitioner namely (i) reduction in pay scale pursuant to which his basic pay has been fixed at the minimum of the pay scale, (ii) stoppage of two increments and (iii) medical leave applied by the petitioner was rejected and the period for which said leave was applied, was treated as leave without pay. The appellate authority has also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the appeal only on one ground that the punishment is very harsh and excessive and it may be reduced to some extent. 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is liable to be allowed partly. The clause –I of the punishment clause, by which the petitioner’s pay was reduced and his basic pay has been fixed at the minimum of the pay scale, is quashed. Regarding clause- II of the punishment clause by which petitioner’s two increments were stopped, it is made clear that the petitioner’s two increments are stopped without cumulative effect. Clause –II of punishment clause does not require any interference. 5. The writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. (P.C. Verma, J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh