MAHENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this Court issued notice of motion on 19.4.2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner had restricted his claim to challenge the order dated 23.10.2003 (P -2), vide which, punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on him for misbehaving with his senior. His challenge to the order dated 26.2.2004, by which, minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was given up. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THOUGH there may not be any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry but the punishment inflicted on the charge of misbehaviour appears to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charge laid. If the petitioner had misbehaved with his superior resulting from an instance dated 23.7.2002, no material facts or particulars have come in the enquiry proceedings as to what actually transpired which could be called misbehaviour. General statements of misbehaviour may not be sufficient to constitute proof of misconduct sufficient to impose major penalty.

(3.) IN the present case, I do not find any substantial evidence justifying infliction of harsh punishment imposed. Normally, this Court on finding that the punishment is harsh, would remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for review of the order but since the incident is more than 11 years old and the nature of the charge is such, it would not serve the ends of justice if the matter is remitted for reconsideration on quantum. Therefore, this Court ex -debito justitiae converts the order from major to minor punishment. The impugned order dated 23.10.2003 shall stand modified and reduced to stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The writ petition is partially allowed in the above terms.