CWP No. 6043 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 6043 of 2008 Date of decision : January 29, 2009 Bal Mukand ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana for respondent No. 1. Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** 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 The petitioner has challenged the order of recovery of Rs. 27, 910/- and stoppage of two annual increments with future effect passed against him after regular inquiry which has since been upheld by the Appellate Authority. The chargé was of embezzlement of Rs. 3,29,640/-. The Inquiry Officer did not find the petitioner personally guilty but held as follows:- “The official remained posted in the sub division from 16.11.95 CWP No. 6043 of 2009 2 to 18.11.96. he should have been more vigilant in performing his duties. Being the Head Cashier he is over all responsible for cash collection. However, the official was not on cash duty on 3.4.96 & 3.5.96 when the embezzlement of Rs.11998/- & Rs. 25601/-took place. Therefore he cannot be held responsible for this embezzlement. So the amount should accordingly be reduced.” The argument raised is that the Inquiry Officer had exonerated him and the Punishing Authority imposed punishment without giving any reason for disagreement. In my opinion the argument is clearly fallacious. It is true that the Inquiry Officer did not find him personally guilty of embezzlement yet he did record a finding that the petitioner should have been more vigilant being Head Cashier and thus over all in-charge for cash collection. The Appellate Authority considered the facts and dismissed the appeal. In my opinion the petitioner having been given full opportunity and there being no allegation of any mala fide it would not be possible for this Court to interfere. In the case of Union of India and another v. S.S.Ahluwalia, reported as 2007(7) SCC 257, the Hon'ble Suprme 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 CWP No. 6043 of 2009 3 punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty.....” Consequently finding no merit in this petition the same is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 29, 2009 sunita