IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5757/2008 Reserved On:22.3.2010. Decided On:08.04.2010. ________ ________________________________________________ Puran Chand. …Petitioner. Versus H.P.Tourism Development …Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1.Yes For the petitioner : Mr.Dilip K.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Naresh Kaul, Advocate. _____________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide office memorandum dated 9.1.1998. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the inquiry report on 1.7.1998. He filed a reply to the same on 15.7.1998. A memo was issued to the petitioner on 3.8.1998 to explain his position. He filed a reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect vide office order dated 19.2.1999. Mr. Dilip K.Sharma has vehemently argued that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law. He also argued that there is violation of the principle of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes . 2 natural justice. According to him, Sh.Ashok Chauhan has not been produced as witness. He lastly contended that the punishment imposed vide office order dated 19.2.1999 is harsh and excessive. Mr. Naresh Kaul has supported the penalty imposed upon the petitioner on 19.2.1999. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The charges levelled against the petitioner as per chargesheet was that he re-sold the ticket, which was earlier sold on 12.12.1997, on 13.12.1997. The petitioner was given opportunity to file reply to the chargesheet. The Inquiry Officer has completed the inquiry as per the procedure. The petitioner was associated during the course of inquiry. The petitioner argued before the Inquiry Officer that the ticket was, in fact, re- sold by one Sh. Rajinder Paul. He also contended before the Inquiry Officer that Sh. K.L.Verma, Manager of the Lift used to utilize the money received after re-selling the tickets. He could not substantiate these pleas. In fact, Sh. Surender Kumar, Sh. Rajinder Paul and Sh.Suresh Kumar have denied that this practice was ever followed by Shr. K.L.Verma. There was sufficient evidence on record to come to the conclusion by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner has re-sold ticket No. 404868 on 13.12.1997. The statement of Sh.Ashok Chauhan, at whose complaint the inquiry was initiated, was recorded by the Manager. Sh. Ashok Chauhan has given in writing that he has purchased the ticket from lift No.3 at about 11 a.m. The statement recorded by Sh.Ashok Chauhan has been taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer has tried 3 his level best to procure the presence of Sh.Ashok Chauhan. Summon was sent to the address given by him. However, the fact of the matter is that despite non-citing of Sh.Ashok Chauhan as witness, there was sufficient evidence available before the Inquiry Officer to record the finding that the petitioner has re-sold the ticket. The petitioner is working in government owned organization. He instead of defending his case has tried to level the allegations against the colleague which could not be substantiated by him. The Disciplinary Authority has given ample opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation against the inquiry report. The petitioner has filed a short representation to the same on 15.7.1998. It cannot be presumed that the inquiry was either incomplete or baseless as stated in representation dated 15.7.1998. He has also been heard before imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect. It is a major penalty. The face value of the ticket was Rs.3/- only. It is settled by now that the penalty imposed must commensurate with the alleged misconduct. The petitioner belongs to lower strata of the society. The Court is of the considered view that the imposition of penalty of withholding of five increments that too with cumulative effect is disproportionate and harsh. The imposition of this penalty is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to impose lesser penalty upon the 4 petitioner commensurating misconduct within a period of eight weeks from today. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 8, 2010(R)