C.W.P No. 645 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 645 of 2009 Date of decision : May 08, 2009 Krishan Chand, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-8) whereby he has been awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement on the allegations that he was having illicit relations with one Bimla Devi. Two preliminary inquiries exonerated the petitioner. However, in the regular inquiry, he was found guilty. After issuing him a show cause notice, the disciplinary authority by order dated 23.7.2008 awarded him the punishment of reversion from the rank of EASI to EHC. In appeal, the C.W.P No. 645 of 2009 ::2:: appellate authority retired him compulsorily. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the two earlier inquiry reports, and in view of the statement of the complainant herself, there was no ground to hold that the petitioner had any illicit relations with the complainant and, therefore, this finding is purely conjecture. Apart from this, no doubt on a moral plank, the conduct of a married person having illicit relations may be highly objectionable. However, it is a moot point whether moral considerations can be imported into either civil or service or criminal law jurisprudence. In my opinion, the concept of misconduct apart from being incapable of definition is a dynamic concept that is to say it does not remain static throughout time. That apart it has also to be seen whether the misconduct complained of has a nexus with the official duties of an employee or is it something which impacts only his personal life. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any law which supports the assertion that this kind of act would constitute grave misconduct. Neither any rule has been cited nor any judgment referred to. In Union of India and another vs S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “.... The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, is very limited. The Court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case, the Court is to remit the matter to C.W.P No. 645 of 2009 ::3:: the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty......” In my opinion, even though it may not be possible for me to dis-agree with the findings of the competent authority regarding the factum of the petitioner having illicit relations, yet keeping in mind the nature of the act, I find that the punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly dis-proportionate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Keeping in mind the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S.Ahluwalia's case (supra), I deem it appropriate to reduce the punishment awarded to the petitioner to that of with-holding of two increments with permanent effect. The writ petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 08, 2009. JUDGE `kk'