CWP No. 5593 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5593 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 16, 2009 ASI Rajinder Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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 imposition of penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority have not correctly appreciated the evidence and have in fact completely ignored the defence evidence led by the petitioner. Second attack is that the disciplinary authority was not kindly disposed towards the petitioner because his mind had been poisoned by some colleague. The scope of interference in disciplinary matters by way of judicial review is extremely limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & another versus S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, held CWP No. 5593 of 2009 2 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 the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty....” Against the above exposition of law I find that both the arguments of the learned counsel do not come within the ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 16, 2009 sunita CWP No. 5593 of 2009 3