IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.6767 of 1999 Date of Decision : July 11, 2011. R.S.Virk .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the charge-sheet dated 30.7.1997 (Annexure P-2); resultant enquiry report dated nil (Annexure P- 4) as well as the order dated 11.8.1999 (Annexure P-6) whereby 30% cut in the pension of the petitioner has been imposed. 2] Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention that the petitioner was serving as a Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner in the Excise and Taxation Department, Government of Punjab. While posted at Moga, he held the excise auction of liquor vends and is alleged to have favoured M/s Satnam Singh and Company ignoring a higher bid. On these allegations, the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.7.1997 was served upon CWP No.6767 of 1999 [2] him. The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure P-3) to the charge-sheet which was found unsatisfactory and a regular departmental enquiry was conducted by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, who vide his report (Annexure P-4) held the petitioner guilty of causing loss to the State revenue and for showing dereliction of duty and negligence. The enquiry report followed by a show cause notice and the reply thereto was duly considered. The opinion of the Punjab State Public Service Commission was also obtained. Since the petitioner had meanwhile retired from service w.e.f. 30.6.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation, the State Government vide order dated 5.8.1999 (Annexure R-2) imposed a punishment of 30% cut on his pension. 3] Though the above mentioned punishment order has not been challenged by the petitioner, however, its communication to the Accountant General, Punjab (Annexure P-5) has been assailed by him. 4] I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. 5] Though it is vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioner that the excise auction of the liquor vends in Moga for the year 1997-98 was conducted by the petitioner in a transparent and fair manner, I am of the considered view that the finding of fact returned by the Enquiry Officer on correct appreciation of the material on record, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It may be seen that the procedure as laid down under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, has been duly followed before imposing the CWP No.6767 of 1999 [3] punishment of 30% cut in the petitioner's pension. No fault can thus be found in the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority in deciding to impose the punishment. Since the petitioner had retired from service before the imposition of the punishment, the only recourse available with the authorities was to impose a cut in his pension under Rule 2.2 of the Pension Rules. 6] Faced with it, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that having regard to the length of service and the clean service record of the petitioner except the impugned disciplinary action, the punishment of 30% pension cut is on the higher side. 7] It is true that the nature or quantum of punishment should also be proportionate to the gravity of the allegations proved against a delinquent employee. The competent authority is well within its right to consider several factors like the mitigating circumstances, entire service records, overall impact of the punishment or the hardship which a retiree is likely to face in his old age. It is seen from the impugned order dated 5.8.1999 that the disciplinary authority though has rightly concluded that the petitioner is to be punished for causing loss to State revenue, however, impact of 30% pension cut, that too for an unlimited period has not been apparently or specifically taken into consideration. Be that as it may, the leniency or any relaxation in the quantum of punishment is also an issue which falls within the domain of the disciplinary or appellate authority. A Writ Court would not ordinarily substitute its wisdom unless the punishment is found grossly excessive or it otherwise pricks the conscious CWP No.6767 of 1999 [4] of the Court. 8] Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and finding no fault with the enquiry report or the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the competent authority holding the petitioner guilty, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner submit a review petition under Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 to the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and in case such a petition is moved by him, the disciplinary authority is directed to treat the same within limitation and consider it sympathetically to see as to whether 30% cut, as imposed on the pension of the petitioner need to be reduced to some extent. An appropriate order to this effect shall be passed prospectively only and within a period of three months from the date of receiving such a petition. 9] Ordered accordingly. 10] Dasti. July 11, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE