BRIJRAJ JOSHI Vs. NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM UJJAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge an appellate order, dated March 11, 2002 (Annexure A-12) which in turn affirms the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner whereby while cancelling his suspension order stopped his increment and confined the same to his salary.

(2.) Petitioner is a trainer. He is posted at the swimming pool belonging to Corporation, Ujjain. On 21/05/1995, one boy succumbed to death while swimming in pool. The charge against the petitioner was that he was careless, rather negligent, in not attending the boy who lost his life. It is to investigate this charge, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, his reply was taken, an inquiry officer was appointed, who recorded the statement of witnesses and eventually after holding a regular departmental inquiry and after granting an adequate opportunity to the petitioner, found the charge levelled against the petitioner to be proved. Accordingly, and on the basis of inquiry report, the appointing authority imposed a punishment confirming the salary to its original pay scale but did not grant any increment. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Collector, who while dismissing the appeal upheld the order of punishment giving rise to filing of this writ.

(3.) In my opinion, the petitioner has no case. He is fortunate to have been saddled with a lenient punishment even after proving the major charge. In m view, charge levelled against the petitioner was quite serious in as much as one boy lost his life due to petitioner's negligence in not attending his duties diligently or promptly. As a swimming trainer he was expected to be vigilant, and attentive to his duties, which he did not do. Be that as it may, the fact remains that punishment having been imposed by an appointing authority, no case for interference is called for in that discretion. Neither this Court can enhance the punishment, nor it can decrease it. It can only uphold it because it is legal, proper and based on proper departmental inquiry held by the authorities. I have not been able to notice any infirmity in the approach, or flaw in the proceedings.