CWP No.7013 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.7013 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.5.2009 Dharm Bir Singh ...Petitioner V E R S U S State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) and 07.02.2009 (Annexure P-7). By the first order the petitioner was awarded the punishment of stoppage of three future annual increments with permanent effect. By the second order his appeal against order dated 13.2.2008 was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the inquiry had exonerated the petitioner and the disciplinary authority had accepted the inquiry report. Thereafter, Inspector General of Police had issued a dissent note to which the petitioner had filed reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no material has been brought forth by the Inspector General of Police as to why the impugned action was taken after 16 months. However, learned counsel is not in a position to deny that in the detailed reply to the show cause notice (which though not on the record was shown to me for perusal), no plea and no explanation regarding delay was requested. Apart from this, I have gone through the entire inquiry proceedings as well as the two impugned orders. It is not disputed that the power of judicial review in such CWP No.7013 of 2009 -2- matters is circumscribed. I draw sustenance from the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. S. S. Ahluwalia 2007(7) SCC 257, wherein it has been 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....”. On a conspectus of the facts I have not been persuaded that the action of the respondents is so unwarranted or perverse that it would shock the judicial conscious. The reasons mentioned by the Inspector General of Police as well as by the Director General of Police in their orders cannot be held to be completely implausible or not arising from the facts. During the inquiry proceedings Rameshwar Parshad PW-10 has clearly and categorically indicted the petitioner and this fact has not been considered by the inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 08, 2009 JUDGE ashish