IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3989 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 07, 2011. Parveen Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : None 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12th May, 2004 (Annexure P-15) passed by the ld. District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect upon him, as also the order dated 5.8.2005 (Annexure P- 17) whereby his Service Appeal against the above-mentioned punishment order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge. The aggrieved petitioner has impugned the aforesaid orders after a period of more than 5 years. Notwithstanding the unexplained delay and laches, the record has been perused which reveals that on a surprise checking conducted on 16.6.2003 by the District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur in the presence of the Superintendent and other officials, some files of FIRs/Special Reports with surety bonds, sapurdari bonds and bail bonds etc. pertaining to the years 1992 onwards of the Court of the C.W.P.No .3989 of 2011 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, were found lying in the almirah of the petitioner. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner and his reply having been found unsatisfactory, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges. A copy of the enquiry report was duly sent and after considering his explanation that the Disciplinary Authority passed a self-speaking punishment order, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also turned down by the Administrative Judge after observing that since the documents were found lying in the petitioner's almirah during the surprise check conducted by the learned District & Sessions Judge, the petitioner cannot shift the responsibility on other officials and was rightly held responsible in this regard. The Appellate Authority still took lenient view and modified the punishment order to the extent that the petitioner shall be paid the salary and allowances for the suspension period. In my considered view, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate to the nature of charges proved against the petitioner. Similarly, the enquiry proceedings have been conducted after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In these circumstances, no case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. Dismissed. March 07, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE