RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged by way of filing the present writ petition the order dated 8.1.2006 (Annexure P-6), whereby the extreme penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. Further challenge is the order dated 7.12.2010 (Annexure P-7), whereby the service appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has not been accepted.

(2.) Facts in brief would require notice. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Process Server on 11.12.1974. He was subsequently promoted as Additional Ahlmad on 30.6.1997. He was charge sheeted in the year 2006 and the article of charge framed against him was that while being posted as Fine Clerk in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate he had retained certain sums of money deposited towards fine for the period between 1 to 12 days prior to depositing the same in the Treasury. The second limb of the charge against the petitioner was that even for certain days in the month of August, 2005 when he had availed leave and had not come present on duty, he had collected a certain fine amount from the officials of the court illegally. The petitioner submitted the reply to the charge sheet and thereafter the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. An inquiry report dated 29.5.2007 was submitted, wherein findings were returned against the petitioner and as such the charge relating to late deposit of fine was duly proved on record. The petitioner was, thereafter, served with a show cause notice along with the copy of the inquiry report, wherein the major penalty of dismissal from service was tentatively proposed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and was even given an opportunity of hearing on 4.8.2007. Vide order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Hisar the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a service appeal against the order of dismissal, which was taken up by this Court on the administrative side and vide order dated 7.12.2010 the service appeal stands dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Hari Om Attri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has at the very outset submitted that he would confine the scope of the present petition only as regards the quantum of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that the charge against the petitioner could not be construed as embezzlement of money in the eyes of law but it was only a delay in the deposit of fine. As such, it has been submitted that keeping in view the length of service of the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service is wholly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. Learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in cases of Hussaini Vs. Hon ble the Chief Justice of High Court, Allahabad, 1985 AIR(SC) 75 and Inderjit Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and another, 2010 12 SCC 530 to contend that a lesser penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case would have met the ends of justice.