IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.91 of 2009 Date of decision:07.01.2009 Amar Singh ...... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 31.03.2006 imposing a punishment of reduction of Rs.1,000/- per month for five years from his pension. His appeal and memorial having been rejected, he is before this Court. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala. Three under trials who were being held in the jail were found guilty of having committed a murder. One subordinate jail official was also convicted along with them. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and was found guilty of supervisory lapses and, the punishment as noticed above was imposed on him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the incident the petitioner had cleared efficiency bar. He further argued that no mala fide was either attributed or found in the conduct of the petitioner. He next urged that eight wardens who were charge-sheeted along with the petitioner were exonerated. CWP No.91 of 2009 -2- In my opinion, all these arguments can be of no avail. It cannot be lost sight of that three persons who were supposed to be incarcerated in jail escaped, committed a murder and reported back to the jail, possibly considering that they would have an unshakeable alibi. In my opinion, in such stark circumstances it would not be open to the Superintendent of the said jail to claim that he was entirely blameless. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the one subordinate official who had facilitated this action had been convicted, and this clearly showed that the petitioner had no role to play. This argument is completely fallacious. It is nobody's case that the petitioner had any role to play. Had that been the case the petitioner would have also faced criminal proceedings. The allegations against the petitioner is that during his helmsmanship not only three persons were able to leave the jail, they committed a murder and came back to the jail. It is further to be noticed that a regular inquiry was conducted against the petitioner wherein he was given full opportunity to present his version. In the circumstances, no infirmity can be found with the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the period during which the petitioner remained under suspension could not have been ignored for the purposes of service counting for pension. In this context, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bibhuti Bhushan Chaudhary versus Union of India & another (1997) SCC 373, wherein it has been held as follows: CWP No.91 of 2009 -3- “The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to the computation of the pension payable to the petitioner and has urged that although the subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension the said period has been excluded from the qualifying service of the petitioner for the purpose of computing the pension payable to him. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, the said period of suspension could not be excluded from the qualifying service for the purpose of computing pension of the petitioner and the pension payable to the petitioner should be calculated by taking into account the said period of suspension as part of his qualifying service.” In my opinion, this judgment would not be applicable. In that case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of failure to join duty and continued in service for 10 years after the revocation of the suspension which itself had lasted for 8 years. It was in those circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as above. In the present case the petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.08.2003 and retired on 31.12.2004. A conscious decision has been taken to consider this period as non-duty. Thus, the facts of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & another versus S.S. Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, held as follows: “.... The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary CWP No.91 of 2009 -4- 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 delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty....” In the present case, the petitioner has been punished with the punishment only of fine i.e. a sum of Rs.1,000/- has been ordered to be recovered from his pension over a period of 5 years. I am not persuaded to hold that either the inquiry proceedings are vitiated or that the punishment was disproportionate. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. January 07, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE