IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17542 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 16.11.2009 Devinder Kumar Mittal ... PETITIONER Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who is working as Higher Grade Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Corporation') has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 7.7.2008, whereby in a departmental proceeding, penalty of reduction in basic pay by one stage permanently in the time scale applicable to the petitioner has been imposed in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (d) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing his appeal, as well as the order dated 3.7.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Chairman, whereby the Memorandum filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid orders, has also been rejected. CWP No. 17542 of 2009 -2- The petitioner was charge sheeted for disobeying the orders of the Branch Manager, obstructing the smooth functioning of the office and having failed to maintain office decorum and discipline. After providing full opportunity to the petitioner to defend the charges by leading evidence and considering the material placed on record, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, passed the order of impugned penalty of reduction in basic pay by one stage permanently in the time scale applicable to the petitioner. The appellate authority affirmed the order of penalty, after considering all the contentions raised by the petitioner. The Memorandum filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have not properly appreciated the evidence. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the time of the alleged incident. It has been argued that the question of refusal of the petitioner to sit at the cash counter does not arise, as already two officers were working on the cash counter and there was no need to issue office order to the petitioner to work on the said counter. It has been argued that the petitioner was illegally punished by the Branch Manager without any fault on his part. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the aforesaid orders, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The CWP No. 17542 of 2009 -3- Enquiry Officer, after appreciating the evidence led before him by the department as well as the petitioner, has recorded a finding of fact about the alleged mis-conduct. It has been proved that the petitioner has disobeyed the order of the Branch Manager and shouted in the branch and created indiscipline. In my opinion, when the order of penalty has been upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Chairman of the respondent Corporation, the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer cannot be re-appreciated, and a different finding cannot be recorded. It is also not the case of disproportionate punishment, particularly keeping in view the nature of allegations. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. November 16, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE