C.W.P No. 7219 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 7219 of 2009 Date of decision : May 14, 2009 Paramjeet Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Pt. Hari Om Sharma, 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 (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure P-4) dismissing him from service, as well as the order dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) whereby his appeal was dismissed. It is not disputed that regular inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the charge of habitual absence. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. It has also been recorded that the petitioner never appeared before the Inquiry Officer and when a show cause was issued to him, he did not even deign to file reply thereto. It was in these circumstances that the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner. I find that the impugned orders are reasoned orders wherein all C.W.P No. 7219 of 2009 ::2:: aspects of the matter have been considered. It is well known that judicial review in such matters is extremely restricted. In the case of Union of India and another vs S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme 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......” I have not been able to persuade myself that the action of the respondents is so perverse as to shock the judicial conscience. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 14, 2009. JUDGE `kk'