Civil Writ Petition No. 3475 of 1991 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3475 of 1991 Date of decision:8.9.2009 Tek Ram, Clerk ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: None for the petitioner Mr. Surinder K. Bishnoi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Though none entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner to assist this Court, the following pleadings related facts would appear to be beyond the pale of controversy and the correctness thereof was not disputed by the learned State Counsel as well. The petitioner, who functioned as a Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Karnal, from 29.9.1983 to 13.11.1984, was charge sheeted for two acts of mis-conduct and, on the basis of a regular departmental enquiry, was awarded the penalties “lowering the pay scales of the petitioner by one step in one case and two steps in second case” (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively). During the pendency of the appeals filed by the petitioner against the Civil Writ Petition No. 3475 of 1991 -2- **** aforementioned penalties, both the orders (regarding imposition of penalties aforementioned) were withdrawn by respondent no.2 vide orders No.38 and 39 dated 29.10.1987 and 28.11.1987-Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively). However, immediately thereafter, fresh show cause notices (on point of quantification of penalties) came to be served by respondent no.2 upon the petitioner. On hearing the petitioner, respondent no.2 passed fresh orders No. 42 and 43, both dated 9.2.1988-Annexures P-8 and P-9, respectively. The factual unanimity ends here. The essential grievance of the petitioner is that he has been punished twice, once vide orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 and subsequently, vide orders dated Annexures P-8 and P-9. The grievance, thus, pertains to a plea of double jeopardy. The respondents denied that the petitioner had been punished twice. The precise averment, made in the written statement, was that the punishments imposed vide Annexures P-1 and P-2 have ceased to exist (with the withdrawal of the orders imposing those penalties) and that it is only the penalties imposed vide Annexures P-8 and P-9 which are in force against the petitioner. It is apparent from the record that the initially imposed penalties were withdrawn as the competent authority was of the opinion that the orders in the relevant behalf had not been passed by a competent authority. Those orders were required to be passed by the I. G. Prisons; whereas those were actually passed by an Civil Writ Petition No. 3475 of 1991 -3- **** officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police who was officiating as I.G. Prisons. This fact is apparent from a conjunctive perusal of Annexures R-4 and R-5. It was thereafter only that a fresh show cause notice came to be served upon the petitioner in the matter of imposition of penalties. The petitioner did have an opportunity of hearing as well. The principles of natural justice were duly observed. The competent authority noticed the gravity of the charges against the petitioner but opted to show indulgence in view of the fact that imposition of penalty of dismissal would have affected his wife and children. It would be pertinent to notice here that the petitioner had been held accountable on the following charges. In the course of his duties, he was supposed to put up register No. 1 for perusal of his superiors. He defaulted in that respect. The competent authority noticed that this, by itself, was not a very serious matter. However, it further noticed that the petitioner, in order to cover up that lapse, forged the signatures of his immediate supervisory authority on the record. The matter attained finality on the basis of a report furnished by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana. The other allegation upheld against him was that he, in connivance with the another junior jail official, obtained a sum of Rs.7400/- from the relation of a convict under incarceration at that jail for the purpose of filing a jail appeal. In order to inspire confidence in the relevant behalf, the petitioner also obtained the LTI of convict on blank papers. It was found out in the departmental enquiry that no appeal actually came to be filed on behalf of the Civil Writ Petition No. 3475 of 1991 -4- **** convict aforementioned. Even while noticing the gravity of the charges, the competent authority adopted an approach of compassion and imposed the impugned penalties by making the following observations:- “For such like person there is no place in a Government department. This one charge itself is good enough to throw him on the record. Probably such a punishment, if given, will serve as a deterrent to others but here by giving him the punishment he deserves, we will be punishing Tek Ram's wife and 6 children who may not be at fault for his foolish deeds. He is a very mediocre and below average officer and he could not digest it. He conducted in a manner which cannot be pardoned. He has since been reverted as clerk, on administrative grounds earlier. To order removal from service, as was tentatively decided, is not difficult but I am looking at the other side of the picture that my orders will be harsh for his family even though he deserves it in no uncertain terms. His removal will be a severe punishment for the family. I cannot reduce him any further and hence I am left with no alternate but to reduce his pay by three stages with permanent effect. While ordering this token punishment, I am feeling weight on my conscience that I am letting a man stay in the Department while he does not deserve Civil Writ Petition No. 3475 of 1991 -5- **** but I have to see impact of my orders on his children.” In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the grievance of the petitioner that it is a case of double jeopardy is completely denuded of merit. Infact, he has been let off by the competent authority with a punishment of quite diluted form. In the proven circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioner had been held to be an official with depleted integrity who could go to the extent of forging the signatures of his immediate superior in order to be able to cover up a lapse on his part. He is also proved to have, in conspiracy with a junior subordinate of his, obtained an amount from the relation of a convict, a sum of Rs.7400/- for purposes of filing an appeal through jail. No appeal, however, came to be filed. In that manner, the convict was not only cheated of the amount aforementioned, the right to appeal also could not be availed of by him. The convicts undergo incarceration in the custody of the members of jail establishment who are duty bound to look after their welfare. The acts, for which the petitioner was held accountable, were heinous in character. The Competent Authority ought not to have been oblivious of the fact that a compassion-filled order could be validly set up as a precedent by the similarly circumstanced and, in that eventuality, it would have been difficult, nay impossible, for it (Competent Authority) to wriggle out of it. Though the compassion- related indulgence is not foreign to the field of administrative law, the exercise thereof has to be noticeably punctuated by propriety-related Civil Writ Petition No. 3475 of 1991 -6- **** refrain and the exercise must take into consideration the gravity of the charge. In view, however, of the fact that the impugned order came about more than two and half decades ago and the petitioner might well have receded into retirement, no interference therewith is intended. The instance shall not, however, be quotable as a precedent. The petition being devoid of merit shall stand dismissed accordingly. September 08, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge