HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13217 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner questions the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 16.04.1999, as confirmed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 vide proceedings dated 28.12.1999 and 12.02.2000 respectively, in imposing on him the punishment to the lower grade of S-3, as arbitrary and illegal. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claiming to be a displaced person obtained a Rehabilitation Card (‘R’ Card) as proof of his being a displaced person. The ‘R’ Card was the basis for his being appointed as an operator-cum-mechanic in the respondent-Company on 10.03.1987. The petitioner’s services were regularized on 09.08.1988 and his probation was declared on 09.08.1989 in the post of operator-cum-mechanic, which falls under S-4 category. While matters stood thus, the Joint Collector, by his order dated 01.08.1988, cancelled the ‘R’ Card issued to the petitioner. The petitioner’s challenge thereto before this Court was negatived in W.P.No.4175 of 1994 dated 15.03.1994. The petitioner was issued a charge memo on 05.05.1995 alleging that he had suppressed material information from the authorities concerned. The petitioner’s explanation dated 10.05.1995 was not found satisfactory, and an enquiry officer was appointed vide proceedings dated 11.09.1995. The enquiry officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report dated 16.04.1996, holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The fourth respondent, by order dated 16.04.1999, agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer. He observed that the established charges were grave in nature and warranted severe punishment as it spoke of gross indiscipline on the petitioner’s part and violation of the provisions of the Offer of Appointment and Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The fourth respondent, however, decided to take a lenient view and, in terms of Clause No.28.1.5 of the Certified Standing Orders, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of “reduction to a lower grade”, at the minimum time scale without protection of seniority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent which was rejected by order dated 28.12.1999. The petitioner preferred a review application to the second respondent who, in his order dated 12.02.2000, observed that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority was just and there were no grounds to interfere therewith. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition. Sri M.L.Ali, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has not suppressed any fact in relation to his appointment in as much as he was appointed as an operator-cum- mechanic with the respondent-Company much prior to the order of cancellation dated 01.08.1988. Learned Counsel would further submit that the punishment imposed has resulted in the petitioner being deprived of 12 years of service in the respondent-Company, and is grossly disproportionate to the alleged acts of misconduct which, even if it were to be held to have been established, is minor in nature. The charge levelled against the petitioner was of suppression of material information, and not information in connection with his appointment. The suppression of material information can arise at any time when an employee is in the service of the respondent-Company. The very appointment of the petitioner, as an operator-cum-mechanic on 10.03.1987, was on the basis of the ‘R’ Card issued in his favour whereby he was shown to be a person displaced from the lands acquired for the purpose of establishment of the respondent-Company. The respondent-Company had provided appointment to the petitioner as a displaced person. The effect of the subsequent cancellation of the ‘R’ Card, by the Joint Collector in his order dated 01.08.1988, is that the petitioner is not a displaced person and, since his very appointment was on the ground that he was a displaced person, his failing to satisfy the said requirement of being a displaced person may well have justified the respondent- Company taking severe action against him including termination of his employment. The challenge to the said order of the Joint Collector was negatived by this Court in W.P.No.4175 of 1994 and this Court, by its order dated 15.03.1994, observed that the guidelines for obtaining the ‘R’ Card required an individual to be a married major as on the cut-off date i.e. 30.11.1980 in case of awards passed prior to 30.11.1980; and since the award, in the case of the petitioner, was passed on 19.07.1982 on which date he was an unmarried minor, the order of the Joint Collector dated 30.08.1993 cannot be faulted. The order of this Court makes it clear that the petitioner was not entitled to be issued an ‘R’ Card as he did not satisfy the guidelines prescribed of being a married major as on the cut-off date, on which date he was an unmarried minor. Since the very appointment of the petitioner, on the basis of the ‘R’ Card, was on the basis that he was a displaced person, his subsequently being found not to be one such may well have resulted in his services being disengaged. The fourth respondent, however, chose to take a lenient view and has merely reverted the petitioner to a lower grade without the benefit of seniority. While the punishment imposed on the petitioner is no doubt a major penalty, in the light of the facts aforementioned, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed is one such which would shock the conscience of this Court. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the fourth respondent, as confirmed in appeal and review by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively. The challenge to the impugned orders must fail. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:12.08.2010 USD