IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 3369 of 1989 Date of Decision: 5.5.2009 Girdhari Lal H.C. No. 1969/Ldh. --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. G.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Sub Inspector. While he was posted in Police Line and was allegedly asked to perform night duty for the time being on 28.1.1988. He was called by the SSP at about 9.30 P.M. It is stated that the SSP suspected that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. The SSP directed the DSP Sh. Kartar Singh Shah to check up the petitioner who visited the Police Lines and found the petitioner absent. DDR No. 59 was lodged in regard to the absence of the petitioner. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry was instituted. Based upon the enquiry a show cause notice (Annexure P-3) was issued to the petitioner after receiving his reply. The impugned order dated 10.9.1988 (Annexure P-1) came to be passed, whereby the punishment of forfeiture of one year of service, treating the period of absence for 14 hours and 36 minutes i.e about one day and reduction of salary from Rs.700/- to Rs. 680/- has been awarded. CWP. No. 3369 of 1989 -2- The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.11.1988. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the order imposing punishment as also the appellate order. The petitioner was also placed under suspension w.e.f. 28.1.1988. He remained under suspension till 3.5.1988. He has been paid half salary as subsistence allowance. From the perusal of the grounds it appears that the petitioner has not challenged the enquiry proceedings. The only ground to challenge the impugned order is that there has been discrimination and the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted. Though, no reply has been filed, however, it appears that the petitioner has been remained absent only for 14 hours and 36 minutes almost a day. This period has been treated as leave without pay and even salary has been reduced from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 680/-. Apart from this one year of service of petitioner has been forfeited permanently. The impugned order does not seem to be fare, rational and legal. Petitioner remained absent only for 14 hours and 36 minutes but a number of penalties have been imposed. Punishment of forfeiture of one year of service is totally disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Even the period of absence has been treated as leave without pay. Apart from that the respondents have also paid only 50% of the salary as subsistence allowance. On consideration of the entire matter, I am of the considered view that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is totally CWP. No. 3369 of 1989 -3- disproportionate and excessive keeping in view the nature of misconduct. This petition is accordingly allowed. The punishment of forfeiture of one year of service and reduction in salary, is hereby set aside. He will also be entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% during suspension. However, the impugned order to the extent it has treated the period of absence without pay is upheld. This petition accordingly succeeds partially. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 5.5.2009 lucky