LPA No. 1500 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1500 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 9.11.2010 State of Punjab & others -----Appellants Versus Harbans Singh ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 06.04.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that imposition of 10% cut on the pension of the petitioner-Drill Instructor is wholly inequitable and disproportionate to the charge of one day absence from duty. The learned Single Judge while quashing the punishment imposed, arrived at the conclusion that the gravity of misconduct has to match with the punishment and has also taken into account the fact that no pecuniary loss was caused to the public exchequer. The aforesaid facts have been taken into account for the purposes of recording a finding of disproportionate punishment to the misconduct proved. LPA No. 1500 of 2010 (O&M) -2- There is a reference made to Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, but it cannot be construed that punishment contemplated by Rule 2.2(b) could only be imposed in cases where an employee has caused pecuniary loss to the State exchequer. Accordingly, the judgment cannot be understood to mean that there is bar on the power of the State to impose cut in pension in other case except where there is pecuniary loss caused to the public exchequer. It may be true that technically and legally speaking, the view taken by the learned Single Judge may be open to some doubt but we are not inclined to entertain the appeal because the matter is to trivial and the petitioner-respondent has already retired from service. We feel content by according finality to order passed by the learned Single Judge but with a rider that it will not be considered as a precedent. It may not be misunderstood for creating a bar on the power of the State to impose punishment only in the cases where pecuniary loss has been caused. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE November 9, 2010 Atul