SUMESH CHANDER AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined on the post of Clerk w.e.f. 20.8.1971 in the respondent department. He was promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 24.4.1979 and Deputy Superintendent of w.e.f. 22.12.1999. He was then promoted as Superintendent w.e.f. 19.1.2000. He earned further promotion as Budget Officer w.e.f. 9.12.2005. When one Karan Singh filed CWP No. 14288 of 1999 against the respondent-State and others no written statement was filed by the respondents and a cost of Rs. 5,500/- was imposed on the respondent- State which was to be recovered from the erring officer. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause for imposition of minor penalty under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. He was apprised that the afore-mentioned petition was received in the Coordination Branch on 20.10.1999 and the reply was to be filed upto 7.12.1999. However he did not take any action to file reply from 2.11.1999 to 5.4.2000 and 12.2.2001 to 5.12.2001. He was also apprised that a cost of Rs. 5,500/- has been imposed by this Court and it was his responsibility in his capacity as Superintendent of the Branch to ensure the filing of reply within the specified time. The matter was delayed for about 15 months. It was proposed that recovery of Rs. 1759/- is liable to be made from him. It was also proposed to take action against the petitioner under Rule 3(III) of the Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1966 as he had rendered himself responsible for disciplinary action.

(2.) The petitioner sent his reply to the show cause notice. After considering his reply, the Commissioner, Higher Education, Haryana found as a fact that the petitioner is defaulter for not filing reply to the writ petition in time. Accordingly a leninent view was taken and punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon him. The petitioner went in appeal and the appellate authority also upheld the order after affording him opportunity of personal hearing. Mr. I.D. Singla, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that other Assistants and Superintendent were also involved for causing delay and no action has been initiated against them. He has also pointed out that the Coordination Branch has been over-loaded with work and the petitioner alone cannot be made responsible for the delay in filing reply to CWP No. 14288 of 1999.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel and are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition. It has been found as a fact that the petitioner was working as Superintendent at the relevant time when reply to the writ petition was required to be filed. There was huge delay in filing the reply and this Court had taken the view of imposing cost of Rs. 5,500/- against the respondent-State but the cost was to be recovered from the erring officer(s). Accordingly it cannot be said that merely because some one else has not been punished then the petitioner becomes entitled to the grant of the benefit. The punishment imposed is also reasonable as only two increments without cumulative effect have been stopped. Therefore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.