IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5629 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 06, 2010. Harbans Singh Sidhu .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, 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 a mandamus to direct the respondents to release his retiral benefits on his superannuatary retirement w.e.f. 30.11.2007. The petitioner was appointed as an Armourer on 11.4.1983 and was later on selected as Drill Instructor on 3.5.1988 in the Police Training School at Patiala. The petitioner has retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2007. Since his retiral dues have not been released so far, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate directions. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their reply- C.W.P.No .5629 of 2008 2 affidavit revealing that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 22.3.2001 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, on having remained absent from duty on 22.3.2007. The reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory and Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Principal, Punjab Jail Training School, Patiala, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who has submitted his report dated 8.8.2009 holding the petitioner guilty of absent from duty for a period of one day. Accepting the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and upon consideration of his reply, followed by personal hearing, the Director General of Jails, Punjab has passed an order dated 28.10.2009, imposing 10% permanent cut on the pension of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. Though the petitioner vehemently contends that he did not remain absent from duty even on a single day, this Court need not to go into such like question of fact(s) in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The real issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the punishment of permanent cut of 10% on the pension of the petitioner is too excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the petitioner. There is no denial to the fact that no loss to the State Exchequer has been caused because of a day's absence of the petitioner. It may be true that the members of the Disciplinary Force and the jail staff like the petitioner who was working as a Drill Instructor, are required to maintain C.W.P.No .5629 of 2008 3 absolute discipline with utmost dedication to duties. At the same time, the punishing authority is under obligation to ensure that the punishment awarded is commensurate to the charges proved. Inadequacy and excessive, both types of punishments do not serve the public interest. As the petitioner had retired during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, no other punishment except a cut in pension could be imposed on him. The said post-retirement punishment under Rule 2.2 of the Civil Services Rules, Volume (II) i.e., can be justifiably imposed only with respect to the loss, if any, caused to the State Exchequer. That being not the case here, in my considered view, the punishment of 10% permanent cut in the pension of the petitioner is too harsh and vindictive. The impugned order dated 28.10.2009 which appears to have been passed during the pendency of this writ petition imposing the aforesaid punishment, is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to release all the retiral dues to the petitioner, if already not released, including arrears of 10% cut on pension, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the arrears. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. April 06, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE