IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14697 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 08.09.2009 Promila Dangi ... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order of penalty dated 9.5.2007 (Annexure P-8), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been removed from services of the respondent school. In the year 1994, the petitioner was appointed as Nursery Teacher in the respondent school. The petitioner remained absent from duty from August, 2002 to April, 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that her son remained ill, therefore, she made application for granting leave. On the other hand, it is CWP No. 14697 of 2007 -2- the case of the respondent school that after submitting application for leave on 5.8.2002, 2.9.2002 and 2.11.2002, the petitioner did not submit any application, therefore, she was directed to join duties vide various letters, but she did not turn up to join the duty. Consequently, the petitioner was charge sheeted for remaining absent from duty. The reply and explanation submitted by her were not found satisfactory and a departmental enquiry was ordered against her. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hathin, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who held the enquiry and provided fair opportunity of hearing and defence to the petitioner. On the basis of the evidence led, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 10.4.2006 holding the petitioner guilty of willful absence from duty for a period of one year and eight months, which was proved against her. The competent authority, agreeing with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, provisionally framed the opinion for imposing penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. The second show cause notice along with the enquiry report was given to the petitioner, who filed reply to the same. The petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. After considering the reply and hearing the petitioner, the penalty of removing from service was imposed upon the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry. He could not assail the finding of fact recorded by CWP No. 14697 of 2007 -3- the Enquiry Officer. He has tried to explain that the petitioner remained absent from duty due to the illness of her son, but learned counsel could not explain how the petitioner remained absent on that account for a long period, particularly when her leave applications were not sanctioned. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a categoric finding that the petitioner remained willfully absent from duty for a period of one year and eight months and there was no justification for her to remain absent, without knowing that her leave applications were not sanctioned. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any case for interference by this Court in the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Gupta Versus Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank & Ors., 2003 (2) SCT 1018, Dev Singh Versus Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., 2003 (4) SCT 249 and Union of India and another Versus S.S. Ahluwalia, 2007 (4) SCT 83, has argued that the punishment of removal from service imposed by the respondents is disproportionate to the charge proved against her, therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court may interfere and remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for re- consideration on the quantum of penalty. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. It has been held in Dev Singh's case (supra) that the Court CWP No. 14697 of 2007 -4- should not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the mis- conduct proved against the delinquent. Thus, the scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty is very limited. In the instant case, the total service of the petitioner was only about ten years and she willfully remained absent from duty for a period of one year and eight months. Thus, in my opinion, keeping in view the total length of service and the period of absence from duty, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the mis-conduct proved against her. Therefore, the present case is not an exceptional one, where in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, any interference in the order of punishment is required. Dismissed. September 08, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE