C.W.P No. 7216 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 7216 of 2009 Date of decision : May 14, 2009 Ranbir Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Pt. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 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) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.7.2003 whereby he was dismissed from service, as also the order dated 14.5.2008 whereby his service appeal was rejected. The facts which have come on record are that the petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on temporary basis. He was asked by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and while entering the chamber of the latter he hurled abuses at both the learned Judicial Officers. In view of the fact that the petitioner was a temporary employee and in view of his C.W.P No. 7216 of 2009 ::2:: previous conduct of being a habitual absentee and unwilling worker, his services were dispensed with as no longer required. Learned Sessions Judge also recorded reasons in the said order for dispensing with the regular inquiry. The Appellate Authority, appreciating the entire material on record, dismissed the appeal by holding as follows :- “........ In the facts and circumstances, the order dispensing with the services of the appellant wherein an overall view of the conduct of the appellant has been noticed, is the motive for dispensing with his services. The act of using foul language is not the foundation of the impugned order. It is admitted fact that the appellant was a temporary employee in terms of his appointment letter dated 7.10.1993, which was on record. The services of a temporary employee are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason or prior notice. Thus, the services of the delinquent official have been dispensed with in accordance with terms and conditions of his appointment letter. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge.” It is well known that judicial review in such matters is extremely restricted. 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 C.W.P No. 7216 of 2009 ::3:: 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......” I have not been able to persuade myself that the action of the respondents is perverse or shockingly disproportionate. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 14, 2009. JUDGE `kk'