KRISHAN LAL Vs. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a driver on the establishment of District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby he has been dismissed from service. Still further, challenge has been laid to the order dated 9.9.2011 whereby the service appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by this Court on the administrative side. Briefly noticed, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 21.1.2009 for having wilfully absented from duty from 15.8.2008 to 9.9.2008 and 11.10.2008 to 10.11.2008 including the intervening period from 15.8.2008 to 17.8.2008. He was placed under suspension on 10.2.2009. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.10.2009 to the charge-sheet and finding the same to be unsatisfactory, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. On following due procedure, the Enquiry Officer returned findings holding the petitioner guilty of having remained wilfully absent from duty from 15.8.2008 to 9.9.2008, 11.10.2008 to 10.11.2008 and from 2.2.2009 till the date he was placed under suspension dated 10.2.2009. Agreeing by the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, the Punishing Authority issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner contemplating the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. A copy of the enquiry report was also sent to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice. The petitioner responded to the show-cause notice in terms of submitting reply and upon considering the same, the impugned order of dismissal dated 23.11.2010 was passed by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar. Even the service appeal stands rejected in terms of a reasoned order dated 3.9.2011.

(2.) Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that even though the article of charge framed against him of having wilfully absented from duty stands duly proved, yet he is confining the scope of the present writ petition only as regards the quantum of punishment. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that the petitioner had joined service on the post of driver in February, 1992 and as such, had a length of service of almost 17 years and that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is wholly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel would, accordingly, urge that a lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. Towards such submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:--

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Garg, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has contended that the petitioner has been held guilty of gross misconduct as also deliberate and habitual negligence in the performance of his duties and findings had been returned against the petitioner after following due procedure envisaged under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 read with Rule 12 of the Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. Learned counsel would argue that there has been complete compliance of the principles of natural justice while imposing the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner and in any case, the facts do not call for any leniency to be shown to the petitioner.