CWP No. 13176 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 13176 of 2007 Date of Decision:July 14, 2008 Bhupinder Singh ......Petitioner Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board and others ........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Indresh Goel, Advocate for the respondents. *** Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 30.8.2006 and the order dated 11.4.2007 passed in appeal. The petitioner was working as a Junior Technician in the Chandigarh Housing Board and was incharge of a cement store of the Board in Sector 45, Chandigarh. In a surprise check carried out on 23.12.87 by two Executive Engineers, a discrepancy was discovered in respect of the cement bags which were in the custody of the petitioner. A chargesheet was issued to the petitioner wherein the following charges were framed:- 1. The the said Sh.Bhupinder Singh while functioning as Mortar Mate during the period of December, 1987 under the CWP No. 13176 of 2007 2 Incharge of the S.O. Sh. A.K.Nanda on the work of construction of 26 Nos. Category-II (3 room houses) for Central Govt. Employees in Sec. 45A could not exercise proper check on the mortar and detect the additional cement store maintained by the contractor executing the work. 2. That the said Sh.Bhupinder Singh Mortar Mate used to get the factitious entries made/himself made and got the register signed of consumption of cement in the cement register, which otherwise has not been consumed at site but pilfered by the contractor in the additional store. 3. That the said Sh.Bhupinder Singh during the course of the investigation has tried and helped the SO and contractor to get the evidence of cement bags bearing CHB stamp disappeared so as to falsify the statement of the three Executive Engineers and to testify the statement of the contractor and SO. 4. That the said Sh. Bhupinder Singh, MM has failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and integrity as enjoyed under Rule 3 (2) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964. Instead of holding an inquiry the disciplinary authority straight away imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments against the petitioner vide order dated 28.8.89. The petitioner filed an appeal and, during the pendency thereof, also sought a reference to the Labour Court. During the pendency of the reference the respondent No.1 decided the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 1.8.2001 (Annexure R-5) holding that the imposition of major penalty of stoppage of three increments CWP No. 13176 of 2007 3 without holding regular inquiry vitiated the proceedings. He, therefore, accepted the appeal without going into the merits of the case but granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with the rules. Consequently the respondent No.3 appointed an inquiry officer who, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, submitted his report dated 11.10.2005, holding the petitioner guilty of all the four charges. Based on that report, the respondent No.2 passed order dated 30.8.2006 imposing punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. Against this punishment the petitioner filed appeal to the Chairman of respondent No.1 who, by order dated 11.4.2007, partly allowed the same and reduced the punishment imposed upon the petitioner to withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Sectional Officer, who was also charged along with the petitioner, has been let off with only a warning while the petitioner has been treated differently. He has relied upon Akhilesh Kumar Singh V. State of Jharkhand and others reported as 2008 (2) SCC 74 in support of his contention that the differential treatment meted out to the petitioner vitiated the proceedings. In this connection it is to be noticed that in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has itself upheld the different punishments imposed upon the delinquents . It would be seen that, as far as the petitioner is concerned, the inquiry officer has established his direct involvement not only in the attempt to pilfer 96 bags of cement but also in the subsequent attempt to destroy the evidence. The argument of counsel for the petitioner, even if accepted, CWP No. 13176 of 2007 4 could not have the effect of washing away the guilt of the petitioner. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons were mentioned in support of the appellate order vide which the punishment imposed upon the petitioner has been reduced. We have gone through the inquiry report and a perusal thereof reveals that not only has the petitioner been granted adequate opportunity to meet the case against him, the inquiry officer has taken care to consider the rival contentions and has passed a well reasoned order holding the petitioner guilty of all the four charges. This finding of guilt is the basis for the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner has not been able to show that no reasons are available to support this finding. The punishment imposed has not been shown to be so disproportionate as to justify interference by this Court. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, however, without any costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE July 14, 2008 sunita