RSA NO.2108 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.2108 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 20.10.2009 Charan Singh ...Appellant versus Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala & another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate 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) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant, challenging the order of his termination. Both the Courts below have held that regular inquiry was held against the appellant, that he was given full opportunity to meet the case against him and that it was proved on record that after taking one month's leave, the appellant remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of three years. Consequently, both the Courts below have rejected the appellant's claim to set aside the order of termination. Learned counsel for the appellant has only argued one RSA NO.2108 OF 2008 -2- question; that undisputedly the appellant had 21 years of service to his credit when he proceeded on leave and that even if, unauthorised absence was established yet the punishment of termination was disproportionately harsh. A perusal of the order of termination of service reveals that the question of entitlement of the appellant to pension has not at all been considered. No doubt, this was a case where the appellant could be said to have forfeited his right to employment for remaining absent from service for a period more than 3 years yet it could not be lost sight of that the appellant had put in 21 years of service and had earned the right to pension and other superannuation benefits. 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 delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty......” In my opinion, the punishment of termination in the present case is so harsh as to shock the conscience of this Court. RSA NO.2108 OF 2008 -3- In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reproduced above, in my opinion, it is a fit case where this Court should interfere with the punishment and substitute the order of termination with an order of compulsory retirement. In these circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed and the order of termination is directed to be substituted with the order of compulsory retirement which would, however, take effect from the original date viz 17.04.2000. Let now the respondents calculate the superannuation benefits due to the appellant and release the same within a period of three months. In the event that these benefits are not released within three months, the same shall be released with 8% interest. October 20, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE