CWP NO.11246 of 2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO.11246 of 2008. Date of Decision: 14.8.2008. Kiran Devi ..........Petitioner. Versus State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Punjab and others. ..........Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Sanjeev K. Tamak,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J. Petitioner, belonging to physically handicapped category, was appointed as a Clerk in the office of District Consumer Forum, Faridkot on 29.11.1995. She was transferred to District Consumer Forum, Kapurthala on 18.5.2004. Thereafter, she was transferred to District Consumer Forum, Ferozepur on 2.8.2005, where she joined on 19.9.2005 and continued till November 2006, when she was removed from service due to departmental proceedings. While in service she was served with two charge sheets dated 28.1.2004 and 21.3.2008. She filed reply to both the charge sheets. Finding them unsatisfactory, regular departmental enquiries were ordered against her. President, District Consumer Forum, Ferozepur, the appointing and punishing authority, himself conducted both the enquiries. She was served in both the enquiries but despite service she did not participate. CWP NO.11246 of 2008. 2 Accordingly, she was proceeded against ex parte in both the proceedings. After considering the material available on record, the petitioner in both the enquiries was found guilty, as charged. The punishing authority, exercising powers under Rule 5 (VIII) of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,1970, after following due process of law vide two separate orders dated 20.11.2006 (Annexures P/7 and P/9) relating to two aforesaid charge sheets, ordered inflicting of punishment of removal from service, in both the departmental enquiries. The petitioner filed service appeal against both the orders and the appellate authority vide its two separate orders dated 7.2.2008 (Annexures P/8 and P/10) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. However, the order of punishment of removal from service was converted into that of compulsory retirement in both the cases. Hence the present writ petition impugning the two orders of removal dated 20.11.2006 (Annexures P/7 and P/9) relating to charge sheets dated 28.1.2004 and 21.3.2006 respectively as well as the two respective appellate orders of even date i.e. 7.2.2008 (Annexures P/8 and P/10). We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The sum and substance of the contentions raised is that the enquiries have been conducted in a one sided and biased manner, without supplying necessary documents needed for petitioner's defence, and thus against the principles of natural justice with the sole objective of victimising her. We are afraid we cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner. A perusal of the paper book shows that vide charge sheet dated 28.1.2004, the petitioner was charged on seven counts, while the second CWP NO.11246 of 2008. 3 charge sheet dated 21.3.2006 contained four articles of charge. A reading of the same shows that the charges are of in-subordination and inefficiency and dis-respect to the superior officers, thus of serious nature. It can be seen that the petitioner is in the habit of levelling allegations against her superiors viz. Superintendent, and even the President of the District Consumer Forum. The language used by her in her complaints, against superior officers, addressed to various authorities is highly abusive and un- parliamentary. Her conduct has resulted into a chaotic condition being created in the functioning of the District Consumer Forum. There is complete loss of confidence and faith in continuing her employment by the employer. She has offered no explanation for not participating in the departmental enquiries. Disobedience, misconduct and indiscipline on her part has been proved. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the impugned action of the authorities cannot be termed as arbitrary or the punishment imposed being disproportionate to the charges levelled against her. No ground for interference has been made out. Dismissed in limine. No costs. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 14.8.2008. (Jasbir Singh) joshi Judge