IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16597 of 2000 Date of decision: December 11, 2008 Pritam Singh ... Petitioner Versus S.G.P.C. ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Ms. Vaneeta Sapra Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** 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. This petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal on the charge of not having deposited the money donated for Akhand Path. Chargesheet was served upon the petitioner to which he filed the reply in which he unequivocally and without any attempt to delay admitted the fact that he had indeed not deposited the amount of Rs.851/- he however added that he had not misuse the amount but spent it on the Akhand Path and gave account thereof. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter it was incumbent upon the respondent to hold an inquiry and the action of dismissal having been taken without holding of an inquiry was vitiated. She relied upon CWP No.16597 of 2000 -2- a decision of this Court in Angrej Singh vs. S.G.P.C. CWP No.8413 of 2001 decided on 23.07.2008 wherein it was held as follows: “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order Annexure P-2 deserves to be set aside since it has been passed without holding any inquiry. In this regard, I draw support from the judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh's case (supra) wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “Sh. B.S. Guglani, learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that all the employees of the SGPC were required to strictly adhere to a pious life. They have to maintain high standards of life and should be persons of good character. Since the petitioner was found to be indulging in certain objectionable activities, his services could not be retained at a religious institution like Shri Darbar Sahib. This plea has no reliance to the controversy raised in the present petition. It is indeed true that persons of high morale and good character should be associated with the affairs of Shri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, but an employee cannot be thrown out of the employment because certain allegations were made against him relating to his conduct and character. Due process of law must be adopted and observed in accordance with the Rules. A bad employee can be thrown out of employment but only after following due process of law and observing the principles of natural justice.” She also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs Jaikaran Singh, reported as (2003) 9 page 228 wherein it was held as follows: CWP No.16597 of 2000 -3- “Normally, the Court in exercise of power under article 226 does not interfere with the quantum of punishment alone if the charges are established against the delinquent and there is no lacuna in the procedure adopted in the departmental proceedings. But at times if the Court feels that the punishment inflicted is grossly unjust and shocks the conscience then in appropriate cases the Court may interfere. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and also taking into account the fact that the respondent had served the appellant organisation for about more than 12 years, we think the ends of justice would be met if the order of dismissal is altered to one of compulsory retirement. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.” She has further argued that the long service of the petitioner for 24 years was not taken into account while imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that once the petitioner had admitted to have not deposited the money, there was no requirement to hold an inquiry. He has further argued that the dismissal order itself records that on an earlier occasion also the petitioner had been dismissed on the same ground but had been reinstated in appeal. He has further argued that the petitioner has approached this Court after 7 years since the dismissal took place in the year 1993 while the petition was filed in the year 2000. Countering these arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as regards the previous dismissal order, the CWP No.16597 of 2000 -4- same was passed without holding an inquiry and in appeal the same was set aside and therefore it was not open to the learned counsel for the respondent to rely thereon to defend the present order of dismissal. As regards the delay, she has sought to justify the same by making reference to the fact that the petitioner had filed a claim before the Labour Court which was decided on 25.04.2000 by order Annexure P-4. In my opinion, even though the petitioner had admitted to the defalcation yet he had given an explanation which if found correct could have been a ground for mitigation of punishment. In these circumstances, the action of the respondent in not holding an inquiry is thus indefensible. The one option therefore would be to set aside the proceedings and direct the respondent to proceed from the stage of consideration of reply for chargesheet. It is conceded before me that the petitioner is now about 70 years of age. Therefore, the above mentioned course may not be either practical or in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the parameters of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. S.S. Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, wherein it has been 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 CWP No.16597 of 2000 -5- 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......”. I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the punishment of the petitioner is converted into that of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of dismissal. The order of dismissal dated 04.03.1993 is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner would stand compulsorily retired from the said date. The respondents are directed to pay the superannuation benefits of the petitioner within one month of the order of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner would be entitled to get 7% interest thereon from the date of the said compulsory retirement till payment. December 11, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE