CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12551 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 19 ,2011 Bharat Bhushan .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 4. PRESENT: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved against the order imposing 5% cut in his pension and the order rejecting this punishment imposed on him. The petitioner also prays for his promotion from the date his juniors were promoted with consequential benefits of arrears of pay and pensionary benefits. Having been appointed as a Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 27.11.1981. He was allowed to cross efficiency bar on 1.3.2004. On 19.6.2007, a memo under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987 was issued to the petitioner. The allegation was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12551 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: that the documents mentioned therein were found missing and that the petitioner was accused of doing away with these documents. Enquiry Officer was detailed to hold a departmental enquiry. After examining evidence of various witnesses, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charge. The Punishing Authority, however, disagreed with the said finding and after recording a dissent note, imposed a penalty of 5% cut in his pension on 30.3.2010. The petitioner filed a memorial against the same, which was rejected on 28.2.2011. The petitioner has also made a grievance for non-release of his retiral dues. As per the petitioner, commuted value of his pension to the tune of `296,854/- was released on 3.6.2010 whereas the petitioner has retired from the service on 30.9.2008. Similarly commuted value of pension was again released on 7.9.2010 and his gratuity was released on 30.6.2010 after imposing cut. The petitioner would submit that the retiral benefits were released with a delay, for which he is entitled to penal interest, which he has claimed at the rate of 18% per annum. Once the disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner, leading to award of punishment to him, the petitioner can not really complain for delay in releasing commuted value of pension. As per the Rules, a person facing disciplinary proceedings is entitled to receive provisional pension and commuted value of pension and other such benefits are released only on finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has in no manner challenged the action of the respondents in holding the proceedings CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12551 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: against him but has only challenged the punishment of 5% cut imposed on his pension. The petitioner pleads that disciplinary authority was not justified in disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and hence, states that the punishment is unjust and improper. To challenge this punishment, the petitioner has mainly submitted that the Punishing Authority has given different reasons than recorded by the Enquiry Officer while recording a note of dissent. I have not been able to appreciate this argument. Obviously, dissent would contain different reasons than were noted by the Enquiry Officer. He was certainly not recording a note of agreement for him to notice the same reasons. The petitioner in fact has challenged the dissent note on the ground that the evidence of Chowkidar was not rightly appreciated. Submission is that Sajjan Kumar, whose evidence is formed the basis of identifying the petitioner as person responsible for taking away the documents, can not be believed as the petitioner has not come present to the office on the date this witness had statedly identified the petitioner. I am afraid by so submitting the counsel is seeking nothing but appreciation of evidence, which would be beyond the scope of writ court. Otherwise also, I have gone through the evidence of Sajjan Kumar, witness, who has given very clear and categorical evidence of the presence of the petitioner inside the office. In fact, the petitioner had been locked inside by the witness but had got the lock opened by knocking the door from inside. The witness had then CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12551 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: opened the gate on seeing the petitioner, who wanted to work for some more time in the office. Later this witness had identified the petitioner as the one who had remained inside the office and had worked. On this basis, the petitioner was found responsible for taking away the documents. The reasons recorded by the Punishing Authority to differ with the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer, thus, are not without basis. There is no merit in the pleas raised by the petitioner and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. July 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE