Civil Writ Petition No. 15319 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15319 of 2010 Date of Decision : 25.5.2011 Kanchan Sharma .......... Petitioner Versus Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. S.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing the order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-10), order dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure P-8), enquiry report dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure P-4) as also the charge-sheet dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure P-2). It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the charges framed against the petitioner does not fall within the misconduct as provided under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1987. He contends that the charges against the petitioner are with regard to her service not being satisfactory and the comments of the Officer that she was not fit for promotion and was incompetent, negligent and slow worker, irresponsible and hurdle in the disposal of the work, apart from having no Civil Writ Petition No. 15319 of 2010 -2- qualities of Stenographer. He contends that her reversion to the post of Stenographer Grade-III and imposing a bar for three years for promotion is disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as Rule 3 of the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966 provides that every Government employee shall maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government employee. The charges framed against the petitioner would be covered by maintenance of devotion to duty and, therefore, the charge-sheet was rightly issued to the petitioner. That apart the departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner where all the charges stood proved against the petitioner. A show cause notice as to why she should not be reverted to the post of Stenographer Grade-III along with copy of the enquiry report was issued to her. In response thereto she filed a reply, which was duly considered by the competent authority. On consideration of the same, the order of punishment was passed against the petitioner whereby reduction from her pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-8300-EB-175-9000 (now revised pay scale PB-2, 9300-34800+corresponding pay grade of 3600) to a lower pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-4800-EB-100-6000 (now revised pay scale PB-1, 5200-20200-corresponding grade pay 2400), with bar for three years, on her promotion to the time scale, or to the scale of pay currently being drawn by her. The petitioner preferred service appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was considered and decided on 29.4.2010 by rejecting the Civil Writ Petition No. 15319 of 2010 -3- same. The grounds which have been raised in the present writ petition were the same as in the appeal which were duly considered by the Appellate Authority and dealt with while deciding the same against her. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any violation of the statutory rules while conducting the enquiry or imposing punishment. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when judicial review is being exercised, is restricted. When the findings of the Enquiry Officer are challenged the aspect which needs to be looked into by the Court is whether there is any evidence on record which would support or throw some light on the findings which have been recorded against the delinquent employee while returning the findings in the enquiry report. There is ample evidence against the petitioner. She was also given opportunity to defend herself, which was availed by the petitioner and she did produce evidence before the Enquiry Officer. The competent authority has in exercise of its powers passed the order of punishment which in the considered view of this Court is just and equitable, which does not call for any interference. It would not be out of way to mention here that the petitioner is working as a Stenographer in the Courts at District Fatehabad. She is posted with a Judicial Officer and the findings which have been returned by the Enquiry Officer and the consideration of the same by the Punishing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority does not call for any interference. Detailed & well reasoned orders have been passed by the Punishing Authority and the Appellate Authority has in detail dealt with all grounds raised by the petitioner separately. On going through the same this Civil Writ Petition No. 15319 of 2010 -4- Court finds no ground to interfere with the said order. The work of Judicial Officers would be hampered in case they do not have efficient Stenographers in disposing of their Court work and, therefore, no leniency can be shown in such matters where efficiency is to be made a casualty. Dismissed. 25.5.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE