IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 9108 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 11th July, 2011. Vinod Kumar Bhatia Petitioner through None Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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 case has been called twice. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 23.07.2009 [Annexure P-7] whereby punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. He also seeks quashing of the order dated 02.07.2010 [Annexure P-9] declining the petitioner's representation to treat the suspension period as spent on duty. The petitioner was a Deputy Superintendent in the Central Jail, Jalandhar. On the night intervening 16/17.01.2007, search was conducted in Security Ward No. 3 and mobile phone, cash and intoxicant substance were recovered from the prisoners/inmates of the jail. Not only this, two groups of the prisoners had an open fight in the jail premises while under the influence of intoxicants in which numerous prisoners were injured. The Superintendent of Jail as well as the petitioner were charge- sheeted and their replies having been found to be unsatisfactory, regular inquiry was conducted in which vide report dated 30.04.2009, the charges were proved against them. However, keeping in view the fact that the Superintendent of Jail and the petitioner were nearing retirement, the Competent Authority took a lenient view and decided to impose a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The gravity and nature of misconduct proved against the petitioner would have justified severe action against the Superintendent of the Jail as well as the petitioner. However, the petitioner has already been dealt with very lightly and as such the order of punishment warrants no interference by this Court. Similarly, the suspension period can not be treated as duty period as such a direction can be issued only when the delinquent employee is exonerated of the charges. The petitioner has been found to be guilty of misconduct which could justify imposition of major penalty. It is only because of the fact that the petitioner was nearing retirement that a minor punishment has been imposed. In these circumstances, he can not claim as a matter of right that the suspension period should be treated as the period spent on duty. No interference in the impugned orders is called for. Dismissed. July 11, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE