Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Narinder Singh Nirdosh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.273 of 1988.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.1987 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 2968 of 1987)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.1987 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 2968 of 1987)
Petitioner: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh & Ors.
Respondent: Narinder Singh Nirdosh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.273 of 1988.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.1987 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 2968 of 1987)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.1987 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 2968 of 1987)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 10, 1997
Appearances:
M.S.Gujral, Senior Advocate, Ms. J.S.Wad, Mr. Manoj Wad and Mr. Abraham, N.A., Advocates with him for the Appellants.
J.D.Jain, Advocate, (NP) for the Respondent.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Disciplinary proceedings – Misconduct – Respondent held guilty of mis-conduct in replacing wheat bags with rejected wheat and mis-appropriation – Held High Court was wholly incorrect in reducing the punishment to stoppage of increments – Nature of punishment depends upon magnitude of mis-conduct which in this case was grave one and in fact punishment by disciplinary authority was very lenient – Appeal allowed.
Disciplinary proceedings – Misconduct – Respondent held guilty of mis-conduct in replacing wheat bags with rejected wheat and mis-appropriation – Held High Court was wholly incorrect in reducing the punishment to stoppage of increments – Nature of punishment depends upon magnitude of mis-conduct which in this case was grave one and in fact punishment by disciplinary authority was very lenient – Appeal allowed.
Held:
In view of the settled legal position that the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the magnitude of the misconduct, is empowered to impose the punishment appropriate to the situation, the High Court is unjustified in interfering with the punishment of reversion, as most lenient view was taken by the Government. The nature of the punishment depends upon the magnitude of the misconduct. Since the misconduct is question is a grave one and the punishment of reversion itself being a very too lenient one, the High Court is wholly incorrect in reducing the punishment which is not at all warranted in law. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P. No.2968/87 dated 19.11.1987.
2. The few facts necessary for disposal of the case are that while the respondent was working as Inspector in the Punjab Civil Supplies Corporation, he was made incharge of the Wheat procured by the Government and weighment in that behalf. In 1980 while he was working in Patiala, he was found to have filled up the wheat bags with husk and thereby misappropriated huge stock of the wheat. Taking a lenient view, the authorities stopped two increments after the enquiry and he was transferred to Gugha in Patiala District. Thereat also he repeated the misconduct. As a consequence, a charge sheet was served upon him on April 24, 1985. The charges levied against him read as under:
“a) For connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh in replacement of new wheat of 1984-85 with 1557 bags of rejected wheat in godowns and for misappropriation and embazzlement of wheat stock.
b) For misappropriation of 17 bales and 242 ‘A’ Class bags in connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh Inspector.
c) For misappropriation and embazzlement of 1292-3200 quintals wheat which was given in short by Shri Gurmail Singh while handing over charge, in connivance with Gurmail Singh.
Separate charge-sheet was given to Gurmail Singh.”
3. After conducting the enquiry, instead of dismissing him from service, the authorities reduced his rank of Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector which came to be challenged in the High Court. In the impugned order, the High Court has held that the punishment was disproportionate, though the misconduct was proved. Instead, he should be given stoppage of two increments. Calling that finding in question, this appeal came to be filed.
4. In view of the settled legal position that the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the magnitude of the misconduct, is empowered to impose the punishment appropriate to the situation, the High Court is unjustified in interfering with the punishment of reversion, as most lenient view was taken by the Government. The nature of the punishment depends upon the magnitude of the misconduct. Since the misconduct is question is a grave one and the punishment of reversion itself being a very very too lenient one, the High Court is wholly incorrect in reducing the punishment which is not at all warranted in law.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the respondent is not appearing, no costs.
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P. No.2968/87 dated 19.11.1987.
2. The few facts necessary for disposal of the case are that while the respondent was working as Inspector in the Punjab Civil Supplies Corporation, he was made incharge of the Wheat procured by the Government and weighment in that behalf. In 1980 while he was working in Patiala, he was found to have filled up the wheat bags with husk and thereby misappropriated huge stock of the wheat. Taking a lenient view, the authorities stopped two increments after the enquiry and he was transferred to Gugha in Patiala District. Thereat also he repeated the misconduct. As a consequence, a charge sheet was served upon him on April 24, 1985. The charges levied against him read as under:
“a) For connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh in replacement of new wheat of 1984-85 with 1557 bags of rejected wheat in godowns and for misappropriation and embazzlement of wheat stock.
b) For misappropriation of 17 bales and 242 ‘A’ Class bags in connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh Inspector.
c) For misappropriation and embazzlement of 1292-3200 quintals wheat which was given in short by Shri Gurmail Singh while handing over charge, in connivance with Gurmail Singh.
Separate charge-sheet was given to Gurmail Singh.”
3. After conducting the enquiry, instead of dismissing him from service, the authorities reduced his rank of Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector which came to be challenged in the High Court. In the impugned order, the High Court has held that the punishment was disproportionate, though the misconduct was proved. Instead, he should be given stoppage of two increments. Calling that finding in question, this appeal came to be filed.
4. In view of the settled legal position that the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the magnitude of the misconduct, is empowered to impose the punishment appropriate to the situation, the High Court is unjustified in interfering with the punishment of reversion, as most lenient view was taken by the Government. The nature of the punishment depends upon the magnitude of the misconduct. Since the misconduct is question is a grave one and the punishment of reversion itself being a very very too lenient one, the High Court is wholly incorrect in reducing the punishment which is not at all warranted in law.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the respondent is not appearing, no costs.
