Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 25 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056191
CM-6002-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-20868-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:056191
(104) CM-6002-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-20868-2017
Date of Decision : April 25, 2024
Dr. Raj Kumar Verma .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-6002-CWP-2024
Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated
08.04.2024, by which, the present writ petition was dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.
Mr. Harish Nain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He
raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present
application.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated
08.04.2024 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number
and status.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056191
CWP-20868-2017
1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the enquiry
report dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) as well as to the order dated
28.05.2016 (Annexure -12) by which, the punishment of 10% cut in pension
for a period of one year has been imposed upon the petitioner and to the
communication dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure P-16) by which, the
appeal/memorial filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Governor of
the State of Haryana. Further prayer of the petitioner is for grant of 3rd ACP
w.e.f. 27.08.2012.
2. Certain facts may be noticed for the correct appreciation of the
issue in hand.
3. The petitioner, who was working on the post of Veterinary
Surgeon, was charge-sheeted in the year 2011 alleging certain allegations
upon him. As per the charge-sheet dated 01.07.2011, the petitioner, who
was heading the dispensary concerned, had failed to perform his duties in
accordance with law, due to which, certain loss has been caused to the
respondent-Department. After conducting the disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner, as certain charges were proved in the disciplinary
proceedings, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 11.07.2014,
proposing a punishment of 10% cut in pension for a period of five years.
The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice and ultimately, on
28.05.2016 (Annexure P-12), an order has been passed imposing 10% cut in
pension for a period of one year. Against the said order, the petitioner filed
an appeal, which has also been rejected. All the orders i.e. imposition of
punishment as well as rejection of his memorial have been impugned in the
present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the 10% cut
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056191
which has been imposed upon the petitioner in the pension for a period of
one year is a punishment, which is not commensurate to the charges alleged
and proved hence, the said punishment is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise,
the petitioner was entitled for the grant of ACP w.e.f. 27.08.2012, which has
not been granted and as there was no impediment in the release of the said
benefit, the respondents are liable to be directed to grant the said benefit and
re-calculate the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner as the
petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.10.2012.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present
petition, the challenge is to the punishment imposed upon the petitioner
vide order dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure P-12) on the ground that the said
order is disproportionate to the charges alleged upon him and in the present
case, the charges have been proved against the petitioner and the
Government considering all the facts, has passed an order of punishment
and this Court will not interfere as the imposition of punishment is within
the domain of the punishing authority.
7. With regard to the non-grant of 3rd ACP, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the benefit of ACP is to be granted in case an
employee is fit for promotion but could not be granted if an employee is
not fit for promotion and in the present case, from the date when the
petitioner is claiming the benefit of 3rd ACP, he was already a charge-
sheeted employee in which proceedings, he has already been held guilty
hence, no benefit of 3rd ACP can be given to the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056191
through the record with their able assistance.
9. The jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings
by the Court is limited. The Court is only to ascertain whether the
procedure envisaged for conducting the disciplinary proceedings has been
followed or not or whether any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner
while conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Not even a single argument
has been raised qua the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and only
argument raised is that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not
proportionate to the charges alleged and proved. Hence, once there is no
argument raised qua the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, this Court
will not like to interfere.
10. Further, with regard to the argument raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is
disproportionate, it may be noticed that as per the settled principle of law,
the Court can only interfere in case the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved. In the present case, the
allegation of the petitioner was that he was not performing the duties while
working on the post of Veterinary Surgeon and rather was only giving the
medicine to be administered to the persons to be administered on their own
to the animals. The said allegations have already been proved against the
petitioner.
11. Further, there is a due application of mind while imposing the
punishment upon the petitioner as in the show cause notice, the proposed
punishment of stoppage of 10% cut in pension for a period of five years,
which was reduced to one year hence, once there is due application of mind,
while imposing the punishment, this Court will not interfere in the same.
Even otherwise, the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056191
disproportionate to the allegations alleged and proved.
12. With regard to the grant of benefit of 3rd ACP, it may be
noticed that the petitioner was facing a charge-sheet at the time when the
petitioner completed the requisite period for the grant of the said benefit.
Once the petitioner was charge-sheeted, he was not entitled for promotion
and before the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings he retired on
31.10.2012 and thereafter, the allegations alleged upon the petitioner in the
charge-sheet were proved and he was punished hence, in these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was fit for promotion on
the date on which the petitioner is asking for the grant of benefit of 3rd ACP.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an
argument that once there was no loss caused by him, the cut in pension
could not have been imposed upon the petitioner and the reliance is being
placed upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No.3571 of 1981 titled as
D.N. Gulati vs. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 07.12.1983.
14. It may be noticed that the said question of law has also been
considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.14052 of
2013 titled as R.C. Pahwa vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on
11.03.2014 where, it has been held that even if there is no pecuniary loss
caused to the State exchequer but the charges have been proved, keeping in
view Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to
Haryana, the cut in pension can be imposed. Once there is a power to
impose cut under the Rules governing the service on proving of the charges,
the order passed by the respondents is perfectly within legal frame work of
the rules governing the aspect.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that one other
employee namely Ramesh Chander was also charge-sheeted and the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056191
punishment imposed upon him is different than the one imposed upon the
petitioner.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that reply filed by
the said employee was accepted and he was only given warning to be
remain careful in future.
17. Even otherwise, the status of an employee and responsibility of
an employee qua certain allegations alleged is to be seen. Merely that two
employees have been charge-sheeted for the same incident, they are not
liable to be imposed with same punishment without going into the actual
facts of the case. An employee might be having different responsibilities
qua the allegations alleged and the punishment is to be imposed keeping in
view the responsibility of an officer and the charges alleged against a
particular person hence, once the State Government in its wisdom decided
to accept the reply of the other employee with regard to the allegations
alleged, the petitioner cannot claim that he should have also been
exonerated.
18. No other argument is raised.
19. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the present writ petition.
20. Dismissed.
April 25, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
