IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3557 of 1989 Date of decision: 30th June, 2010 T.R. Miglani … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. None for respondents No.2 and 3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was then posted as a Junior Engineer in the office of Executive Engineer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal Division, Karnal, with a prayer that order dated 24th April, 1987 (Annexure P-6), whereby punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was awarded by the punishing authority, be quashed, along with the order passed by the appellate authority on 11th November, 1988, whereby the same was affirmed. Quashing of the show-cause-notice and the enquiry report has also been sought in the present writ petition. A perusal of the brief facts stated in the writ petition reveals that the petitioner was posted as a Junior Engineer and in the course of Civil Writ Petition No.3557 of 1989 performance of his duty, he had to deliver the possession of plot No.270-P, Sector 14, Gurgaon to the allottee. The measurement of the plot was 44 feet x 75 feet and the total area was 250 square yards. Instead the petitioner delivered the possession of 350 square yards and thereby possession of extra 100 square yards was delivered to the allottee out of the green-belt. This act of the petitioner caused loss to his employer, i.e. Haryana Urban Development Authority, for which they had to initiate recovery proceedings. The charge further stated that the petitioner was not competent to give possession of the extra land. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the reply filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner and the possession of the excess area was not delivered due to any extraneous reasons. Learned counsel has further submitted that other two persons, who were similarly charged and awarded punishment, in appeal they have been leniently dealt-with and their punishment has been reduced from stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect to that of two increments without cumulative effect. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to meet the observation made by this Court that the nature of the duties qua each delinquent official differs and the different punishment can be awarded. A delinquent official cannot invoke the principle of equality so far as punishment is to be awarded. However, taking into consideration the fact that other two officials have been leniently dealt-with and that the allottee had later-on deposited the amount pertaining to the area of which possession was delivered in excess, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment ought to be proportionate to the act of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner, for which he has been held liable. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances spelt- out above, this Court is of the view that stoppage of two increments with 2 Civil Writ Petition No.3557 of 1989 cumulative effect will serve the ends of justice. Thus, the order of punishment is modified to that extent. The salary of the petitioner shall be re-fixed in view of the observations made in this order, within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order. With the observations made above, present writ petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE June 30, 2010 rps 3