CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7150 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 Ved Pal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. N. D. Achint, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner, a Patwari, was accused of entering a mutation in a wrongful manner, on the basis of decree passed by the Court dated 24.4.1997, intentionally to cause undue favour to one party. For this misconduct, charge sheet dated 14.12.2006 was served to the petitioner, to which he submitted reply on 7.8.2006. Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, however, issued direction for holding enquiry. The Enquiry Officer thereupon submitted his report on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7150 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: 18.1.2007, holding the petitioner guilty of charge preferred against him. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 15.3.2007 and thereafter Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on 13.3.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, when the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, reduced the punishment to stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The Commissioner also observed that it was not a case of intentional act but a mistake, which the petitioner had committed without any malafide intention. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition to impugn the punishment so imposed. It is stated in the reply that no constitutional or legal rights of the petitioner have been infringed and that the punishment was imposed after holding due enquiry and after following due procedure, as laid down in Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner has made a single fold submission to urge that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence. As per the counsel, the allegation made against the petitioner, for which he was charged, could not be proved. Considering the submissions made, the counsel for the petitioner was asked to indicate that portion of the pleadings to show where the petitioner has raised a challenge that finding is based on no evidence. The counsel then conceded that there was no such pleading made in the writ petition. Once ground urged is not pleaded in the writ petition, the counsel can not be permitted to pursue that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7150 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: line of submission as then the respondent-State certainly would be taken by surprise. Even otherwise, no material has been placed on record to substantiate such a plea. The plea that the charge could not be proved on the basis of evidence may not be strictly within the purview of adjudication by the writ court. While exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence that has been led. The allegation as made in the charge sheet would show that the petitioner is alleged to have entered a mutation on 25.6.2004 on the basis of a civil court decree dated 24.4.1997. Through this decree, Civil Court had set-aside an earlier decree dated 27.5.1989. Accordingly, the charge is the petitioner should have entered the mutation on the basis of the original decree before correcting the entry on the basis of decree passed in 1997, setting-aside the earlier decree. The allegations are that parties name in Column 4 of ownership do not tally as decree which was set-aside had not been entered. It is, thus, alleged that the mutation was wrongly entered. Further allegation is that this appears to have been entered intentionally to cause undue favour. The Enquiry Officer found the charge proved. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend the charge but he could not succeed in proving his innocence. It may be that the Commissioner did not find this act to be intentional but still, he found it to be a mistake and accordingly gave necessary relief to the petitioner by reducing the punishment imposed by the Deputy Commissioner. This can not mean that the petitioner was not held responsible for the allegations as made in the charge-sheet. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7150 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE