C.W.P No. 10711 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10711 of 2007 Date of decision : May 15, 2009. EHC Bir Singh, ... Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others, ... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate for Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 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 (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 14.7.2006, 22.9.2006 and 28.3.2007 whereby he has been found guilty of the charge of permitting an under trial in his custody to carry Rs.9700/-. Originally by the first order dated 14.7.2006, the competent authority passed the order of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect. By the subsequent orders mentioned above, the appeal and the revision of the petitioner were rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that in fact the petitioner had confiscated the amount of Rs.9700/- and handed it over to his C.W.P No. 10711 of 2007 ::2:: superior. However, in the punishment order, the plea of the petitioner has been recorded as follows :- “..... The defaulter HC Bir Singh No.971/KNL has taken main plea that at about 5/5.15 PM he had went to District Jail, Karnal to hand over the accused to jail authorities. The applicant was unaware of the rules/instructions as to whether the accused was entitled to take cash amount to Jail or otherwise. Therefore, at the time of search of the accused, the applicant told Head Warden Ranbir Singh No.2760 that there is a sum of Rs.9700/- in the custody of the accused.” Further, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any thing on the record whereby the plea of the petitioner regarding handing over the money to his superior has been established. It is well known that judicial review in such matters is extremely restricted. In the case of Union of India and another vs S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme 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 punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid C.W.P No. 10711 of 2007 ::3:: delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty......” I have not been able to persuade myself that the action of the respondents is perverse or shockingly disproportionate. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. May 15, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) `kk' JUDGE