IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 32 of 2008 Executive Director (Dept. Head Business Group and Corpn. Office) HMT Ltd. & Others. .……… Appellants Versus Ashok Kumar Singh (Ex. T. No. 31092). S/o Shri A.P. Singh, R/o Village Malahath, PO Dabathuna, Dist-Varanasi. ……… Respondent Mr. V.K. Bisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 2007 passed in WP No. 6517 of 2001 (S/S) partly allowed the writ petition of the respondent herein by setting aside the dismissal order passed by the appellants against the respondent and by directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the entire issue relating to the award of punishment of dismissal looking to the nature of misconduct alleged in the chargesheet. 2. The respondent was dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct relating to and arising out of two allegations against him. In one allegation, he was accused of claiming a false medical reimbursement of Rs.20/- as consultation fee paid to a doctor. The second allegation against him was that on a particular day even though he was on Half Pay Leave (HPL), he received the salary of full day for that particular day. 3. Mr. V.K. Bisht, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon a Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah & Others Vs. Hoti Lal & Another reported in 2003 (3) SCC 605. In para 10 of this judgment, their Lordships have made some pertinent observations about the court recording reasons as to why it is felt by the court that the punishment awarded was not commensurate with the proved charges. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has even though not elaborately recorded the reasons yet has clearly observed that the punishment is too harsh and shocking looking to and considering the nature and the gravity of the charges against the respondent. The details of the charges have been noticed and mentioned elaborately in the course of the judgment to bring home the point that the allegations of misconduct against the respondent revolved around the aforesaid two acts concerning the false claim of Rs.20/- and inappropriately receiving full day’s wages instead of half day’s wages for one particular day. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge did indicate his mind by the aforesaid reasoning to convey that the punishment was too harsh as well as shocking and not commensurate to the nature and gravity of charges. 4. We fully agree with the learned Single Judge and while dismissing this appeal and upholding the impugned judgment, we do wish to observe that it shall be entirely upto the disciplinary authority to have a re-look at the entire matter in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment as well as by us in the course of this order and to re-consider and re-decide the issue relating to the quantum of punishment. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 09.05.2008 09.05.2008 L.S.R/V.K.