CWP No.15848 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15848 of 1989 Date of decision : 01-07-2010 Narinder Nath .... Petitioner VERSUS Municipal Committee, Bhiwani and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana, for respondent no.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, petitioner an Octroi Clerk in Municipal Committee, Bhiwani has assailed the order at Annexure P-10 dated 24.07.1989 passed by Director Local Bodies, Haryana, Chandigarh in appeal whereby appeal was partly accepted. Petitioner's dismissal from service was set aside and he was reinstated into service. However, his two increments without cumulative effect were stopped. A grievance has been made in the present petition that the Appellate Authority in the impugned order at Annexure P-10 has only considered the quantum of punishment but has not gone into the CWP No.15848 of 1989 -2- merits of the case and has made no efforts to determine the guilt of the petitioner or absolve him of the charge. I have perused the impugned order. There is merit in the contention advanced by the counsel. The impugned order was passed on 24.07.1989, arguments advanced on merits have not been dealt with. Therefore, there was no option with the Court except to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority. At this stage, Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner states that in case matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority after 21 years, it will cause unnecessary hardship to the petitioner, who has retired from service and would also run risk of suffering higher punishment. Counsel states that there are mitigating circumstances which can be considered by this Court to reduce the punishment. Counsel submits that in case, punishment of stoppage of two increments is reduced to that of one increment, the petitioner will be satisfied. Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that while setting aside the order of termination, already a lenient view has been formulated by the Appellate Authority. A perusal of the file reveals that the petitioner challenged his termination before the Lower Appellate Court. Award of the Lower Appellate Court had been challenged in this Court and thereafter petitioner had approached Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.418 of 1982 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the petitioner to prefer an appeal. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in corridors of the Court since 1976, this Court accepts the prayer made by CWP No.15848 of 1989 -3- counsel for the petitioner and reduces the punishment of stoppage of two increments to that of one increment without cumulative effect. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 01-07-2010 JUDGE manju