IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19 of 2009 Date of decision: 06.01.2009 Satpal Singh ...... Petitioner versus State of Haryana & others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of four increments (reduced to stoppage of 2 increments with permanent effect) for unauthorised absence after holding regular inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the medical record shows that the absence of the petitioner was due to illness and that the authorities/respondents have erred in rejecting the plea of illness by holding that the medical record was fabricated. In my opinion, the main reason for imposition of punishment, as has been recorded in the order itself was that the petitioner did not inform the respondent-department about his requirement of leave. A perusal of the medical record placed on the record by the petitioner reveals that the illness complained were of Lumber Spondylitis, Viral fever and Sore Throat. None of these illnesses can be said to be such that they prevented the CWP No.19 of 2009 -2- petitioner from informing the respondent-department and requesting them for grant of leave. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then argued that the punishment of stoppage of two increments may be reduced to stoppage of one increment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & another versus S.S. Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, 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 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, the punishment imposed is not disproportionate as to shock the conscience of this Court. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. No costs. January 06, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE