CWP NO. 12240 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 12240 Of 2007 Date of Decision: 29.07. 2008 Paramjit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.R.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. **** Ajay Tewari, J. The Petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 8.7.2005 whereby he was imposed the penalty of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with a further direction that he would not earn any increment during the period of such reduction and the subsequent order dated 2.12.2006 whereby his appeal was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Inquiry Officer had exonerated him and that no reasons were recorded by the Disciplinary Authority for differing with the Inquiry Officer and thus the CWP NO. 12240 of 2007 2 impugned orders were liable to be set aside. By Memorandum dated 13.04.2005 the Disciplinary Authority recorded the following disagreement note:- “ It is a fact that, during the surprise visit, the bricks were found laid lengthwise at 3 places instead of breadth wise and the same is not disputed by the Charged Officer also. However he gave the certificate of 100% checking according to the terms, conditions of the contract which resulted in over payment to the contractor. By shifting the responsibility to his superior of their respective checking of the work, he himself cannot be absolved of the responsibilities. As such the charges levelled against him are fully proved.” In our opinion adequate reasons have been mentioned therein for justifying the said disagreement. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to show cause in respect of this disagreement. The petitioner in fact, did make a representation protesting against such disagreement and it was after considering the entire record that the impugned orders were passed. In the written statement filed by the respondents it has been mentioned that not only the petitioner but even his senior officers were duly punished for their role. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged that even after having found the petitioner guilty after differing with the Inquiry CWP NO. 12240 of 2007 3 Officer, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to issue yet another notice to the petitioner outlining the penalty proposed to be imposed and giving him an opportunity to show cause against such penalty. He has placed reliance on the case of Lav Nigam V. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. and another reported in (2006)9 SCC 440. Reliance of the petitioner on the aforesaid judgment is misconceived. In the case, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Punishing Authority, without communicating the reasons of disagreement proceeded to serve a show cause notice for imposing penalty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that no notice at all was given before the Disciplinary Authority recorded its final conclusions differing with the finding of the fact of the Inquiry Officer. The notice to show cause was a show-cause against the proposed punishment. In the present case, the reasons of disagreement were recorded and communicated to the petitioner and after considering the reply filed, the punishment was imposed. Such procedure adopted by the respondents is in tune with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others V. Kunj Bihari Misra, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84 and Yoginath D. Bagde V. State of Maharashtra and another, (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 739. Still further, the petitioner has not taken such plea in the appeal filed against the order imposing punishment nor raised such plea in the writ CWP NO. 12240 of 2007 4 petition. Besides, the petitioner has not pleaded that he has any prejudice in the cause of disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE July 29, 2008 sunita