RSA No.2429 of 2009 -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2429 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 07.10.2009 Rajiv Kumar ... Appellant versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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 filed by the appellant for declaration challenging the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by holding that the appellant-plaintiff was subjected to regular departmental inquiry and no interference was called for by way of judicial review. The following questions have been proposed: i) As to whether the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police are sustainable, especially when the official/officer against whom the alleged misconduct has been done by the appellant have admitted that no misbehave was done by the appellant? ii)As to whether the impugned orders dated RSA No.2429 of 2009 -2- 28.10.2003 and order dated 30.01.2004 are sustainable in the eyes of law, especially when the impugned orders are not based on the evidence brought on the record before the inquiry officer? iii)As to whether the judicial court is not suppose to see the evidence led before the inquiry officer, when the impugned orders have been sought to be challenged being illegal and not based on the record? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence, so as to render them perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is harsh and disproportionate. In my opinion, it is only in cases of extreme disproportionality where the punishment of judicial review is permitted. In the present case, I am not persuaded to hold that the punishment of withdrawal of two increments with cumulative effect for misbehaving with a colleague in the office premises can be held so disproportionate as to justify judicial review. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. October 07, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE