IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14649 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.01.2010. Daljinder Singh and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 10.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) and dated 9.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) whereby punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, has been imposed on them after holding a regular departmental enquiry and that orders have been further upheld by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners were charge-sheeted and subjected to departmental action on the allegations that while serving as Warders in the Central Jail, Amritsar and when they were on duty on 24.9.1997 in surgical ward of Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, to keep special watch on a C.W.P.No .14649 of 2008 (O&M) 2 life convict, namely, Jaspal Singh son of Guljar Singh who was brought to the said hospital from the jail for his treatment, but who escaped from the hospital due to sheer negligence on the part of the petitioners and their companion Harbhajan Singh, Warder who was also on duty with the petitioners. Besides registration of criminal case, the petitioners were dealt with departmentally resulting into imposition of the punishment under challenge in these proceedings. The petitioners now seek quashing of the impugned orders on two counts. Firstly, they claim that after acquittal in the criminal case on identical charges, the departmental action cannot sustain. Secondly, they allege discrimination as, according to them, Harbhajan Singh-Warder, their third companion, who was held to be mainly responsible for the escape of the convict and who was earlier dismissed from service, has been awarded lesser punishment of stoppage of three annual increments without cumulative effect, namely, a minor punishment. The punishment in the departmental action in respect of Harbhajan Singh is said to have been reduced by the State Government on a representation/revision petition filed by him. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. So far as the first contention, namely, acquittal of the petitioners in the criminal case is concerned, in my considered view, it has C.W.P.No .14649 of 2008 (O&M) 3 no bearing on the departmental action taken against them. While in criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the allegations beyond any doubt, the same standard does not apply to quasi-judicial proceedings like departmental action. Suffice it to observe that in a domestic enquiry, an employee can be held guilty even on the basis of preponderance of evidence. So far as the alleged discrimination in the matter of awarding punishment to the petitioners is concerned, learned State counsel points out that Mr.Vinod Bhullar, Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, during his afore-stated tenure, entertained several representations/revision petitions of various police/jail department employees and passed orders reducing their sentences in the departmental actions. A bulk of orders passed by the said officer ultimately became subject matter of a Public Interest Litigation before this Court in CWP No.1356 of 2010 (Sukhdev Singh versus State of Punjab and others), and pursuant to the directions issued therein, the orders passed by Mr.Vinod Bhullar reducing the punishment in departmental cases, are being reviewed in accordance with law/Rules. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, I am of the considered view that the second plea is also not available to the petitioners. Otherwise also, having regard to the nature of the misconduct proved against the petitioners, the imposition of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect cannot be said to be disproportionate in nature and/or so excessive that it would prick the C.W.P.No .14649 of 2008 (O&M) 4 conscience of the Court. No interference with the impugned orders is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, except that it will be highly desirable that the respondents take suitable action in terms of the undertaking given in the PIL, in accordance with law. Dismissed. 29-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE