IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 371 of 2003 Reserved on: 15.07.2008 Date of decision: 30.07.2008 A.K. Goyal … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Shilpa Sood, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Per V.K. Ahuja, J. : This is a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter to be referred as ‘CAT’ on 29.1.2003, dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted as Technical Assistant under respondent No. 3 in the year 1994, he was placed under suspension on 12.4.1994 and chargesheeted on 13.7.1994. He alleged that since no action was being 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 taken for conducting departmental proceedings against him, he filed an Original Application before the learned ‘CAT’ who directed the respondents to conclude the proceedings within a period of four months. After completion of inquiry, a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer who came to the conclusion that the first charge regarding non-preparation of monthly progress report does not stand proved, whereas Charges No. 2 and 3 stand proved. The petitioner submitted his reply to the inquiry report and the major punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him vide order dated 3.10.1997, which order was affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority vide his order dated 27.7.2001. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the learned ‘CAT’ who dismissed the same vide its impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned ‘CAT’ on the ground that though the Inquiry Officer had found that one of the charges has not been established but the Disciplinary Authority had held the petitioner guilty of all the charges. It was also alleged that the Disciplinary Authority had differed from the findings of the Inquiry Officer, therefore, he was bound to give his reasoning, which was not given and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority were without application of mind and as such, the major penalty was wrongly imposed upon the petitioner and the said order is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the record shows that Charge No. 2 proved against the petitioner was in regard to non-taking of notice of memoranda vide which he was required to undertake field tour to Mandi District. The petitioner had taken plea in his reply that he was not willing to take tour to Mandi District until and unless a government vehicle was made available to him and no tour was undertaken by him 3 during the period as mentioned in the inquiry report. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner could defy the orders to conduct the tour on the grounds taken by him as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner due to bad weather or non-providing of a government vehicle. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded during the course of arguments that being Class-III employee, he was not entitled to a government vehicle. The next charge was using of insolent language while submitting his explanation dated 9.3.1994. It was observed by the Inquiry Officer that the official had already put in 23 years service and he should use such language in official correspondence which was not against official decorum. Thus, both the charges stood proved as held by the Inquiry Officer and nothing could be pointed out that said Inquiry Officer’s report suffers from any infirmity. In regard to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority in view of the fact that both the major charges stood proved, it was for the Disciplinary Authority to consider what punishment should be given to an employee and it is not for the Court to decide what punishment should have been awarded. This Court can only interfere if it is proved that the punishment imposed is so excessive that it hits the conscience of the Court and calls for re-consideration, which is not the case in view of the present facts proved as against the petitioner as mentioned above. The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, calls for no interference by this Court and all these points have been duly considered by the learned ‘CAT’ in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. No case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the learned ,CAT’, which is 4 a well reasoned order and, therefore, there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge July 30, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge 5