C.W.P. No. 1404 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1404 of 2009 Date of decision : January 29, 2009. Maha Singh .... Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.A.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service on charges of being absent without permission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has only argued that absence can never be a gravest act of misconduct so as to justify dismissal. As regards this aspect is concerned I find that the Appellate Authority considered the entire record of the petitioner and found 32 different instances of absence from duty for which the authorities have issued him various warnings and punishments. Further four cases of absence from duty could not be concluded because of the termination order. It was further C.W.P. No. 1404 of 2009 2 found that earlier also his services had been terminated but he had been taken back on duty by the Appellate Authority. In my opinion the petitioner is a hardcore recidivist who has treated his service as a fiefdom. It has been repeatedly held that Courts have a very limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings. In the case of Union of India and another v. S.S.Ahluwalia, reported as 2007(7) SCC 257, wherein the Hon'ble Suprme Court 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 considering the over all conduct and record of the petitioner it cannot be held that punishment is so shockingly disproportionate as to warrant interference. This petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 29, 2009 sunita