IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.7132 of 2006 Date of decision: 4.8.2008 Shankar Dass Sharma -----Petitioner Vs. Haryana Gramin Bank and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. PK Dutt, Advocate for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 16.8.2003, Annexure P.24 imposing penalty of dismissal and order dated 30.9.2003, Anenxure P.25 affirming the said order in appeal. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined service in Haryana Kshtriya Gramin Bank, Bhiwani on 3.3.1983 and was later promoted as Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier. He was given a charge sheet making allegation of misconduct of his being engaged in political activities. After enquiry, the said charge was held to be Civil Writ Petition No.7132 of 2006 proved and impugned order of dismissal was passed after following the due procedure. The same was affirmed in appeal. 3. Grievance in the writ petition is that the order of dismissal could be passed only by the Chairman and not by the General Manager and that social service rendered by him could not be treated as involvement in politics. Further contention is that he having rendered more than 20 years of service, order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge. 4. In the reply filed, stand taken is that the appointing authority under the Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2000 is the General Manager and not the Chairman. The Haryana Gramin Bank has since now been merged with the Haryana Gramin Bank and as per Haryana Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2005, appointing authority continued to be General Manager. It is further stated that misconduct alleged against the petitioner was duly proved in a departmental enquiry. The petitioner was not being punished only for the social work done by him but on account of his absence from duties and other misconduct specified in the charge sheet. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. A perusal of statement of imputations annexed to the charge sheet dated 23.5.2001 shows that allegation against the 2 Civil Writ Petition No.7132 of 2006 petitioner was that his photograph was published in newspapers with political leaders and it was recorded that he was exhorting people to take part in rally to be held on 4.3.2001. He was engaged in preparation for rallies. The said charge was held to have been proved on the basis of evidence in the enquiry report dated 12.6.2003, Annexure P.23, which led to the passing of the impugned order of dismissal from service. It cannot be held that organization or participation in a rally has any connection with the official duties of the petitioner. Thus, we do not find any ground for interference with the finding recorded against the petitioner or misconduct having been established. It is not shown that order of dismissal has not been passed by competent authority. However, we find merit in the contention that penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. It remains undisputed that the petitioner had already rendered service of 20 years on the date of dismissal. He had joined service on 3.3.1983 and order of dismissal is 16.8.2003. 7. Normally, courts do not substitute punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate. At the same time, doctrine of proportionality being part of Article 14 of the Constitution, where punishment is too harsh, the punishment of dismissal may be liable to be interfered with. Though, normal course may be to set aside the order of dismissal and remand the matter for imposing lesser punishment, following the law laid down in State 3 Civil Writ Petition No.7132 of 2006 of U.P. v. Jaikaran Singh,(2003) 9 SCC 228 and State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava,(2006) 3 SCC 276, we consider it appropriate to direct that order of penalty of dismissal will stand substituted for order of penalty for compulsory retirement. 8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 4, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 4