IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 806 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.8.2009 State of Haryana and others ......Appellants Vs. Ram Avtar ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Addl. AG, Haryana, for appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1 The appellants are aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to convert punishment of dismissal of the respondent to that of compulsory retirement. 2. The respondent was employed as Constable and served for more than 20 years on the date of passing of order of dismissal from service dated 29.2.2000. Charge-sheet dated 9.11.1999 was served upon him alleging absence from duty from 29.6.1998 for a period of about four months. The respondent denied the charge which led to departmental inquiry. As per report of the Inquiry Officer, the charge was proved. After giving show cause notice and considering reply of the respondent, order of dismissal from service was passed, which was affirmed in departmental appeal and revision. 3. The respondent challenged the order of punishment by filing writ petition alleging denial of proper opportunity and punishment being disproportionate. The writ petition was contested. 4. Learned Single Judge held that though it was not in the interest of justice to retain the respondent in service, having regard to the fact that LPA No. 806 of 2009 [2] he had already rendered more than 20 years of service, depriving him of pension would be disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. S.S.Ahluwalia [2007] 7 SCC 257, referred to in the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge, the Court could interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be 'shockingly disproportionate' to the charges. In the present case, the punishment was justified having regard to the past conduct of the respondent. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. The relevant rule which deals with infliction of punishment of dismissal i.e. Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 reads as under: “16.2 : Dismissal: Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.” 8. Question whether punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges has to be decided having regard to the length of service, nature of charge and other circumstances. Decision taken by disciplinary authority is normally not open to challenge by way of a writ LPA No. 806 of 2009 [3] petition. Writ Court is not an appeal Court. Interference is permissible under the doctrine of proportionality which is part of right of equality, if penalty is disproportionate. Court would normally require the competent authority to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order. In a given case, such procedure could be dispensed with, if considered unnecessary. Reference may be made to law laid down in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel [1985] 3 SCC 398 at page 502 paras 127, 138, B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India [1995] 6 SCC 749 paras 18, 22-24, State of U.P. vs. Jaikiran Singh [2003]9 SCC 228, Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Association [2007] 4 SCC 660, paras 19-21, 24, 28 and State of U.P.Vs. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava [2006](3) SCC 276 paras 22-25. 9. In the present case, the learned Single Judge held that action of the respondent was an act of omission and not an act of commission and it was not a case to deprive the respondent of pension which he had earned. 10. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 11. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 31, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No