RAJ BIBRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant indicated, at the very outset, that he does not contest the validity of the impugned enquiry proceedings but would confine his relief to the question of disproportionate character of the punishment.

(2.) A 10% cut in the pension of the plaintiff-appellant was ordered by the Competent Authority following his indictment on charges alleging, inter alia, that he did not report for duty in pursuance of the transfer orders and that he opted instead to go to the Court of law. It was argued that the penalty imposed is highly disproportionate, inasmuch as there was no other adverse entry otherwise in the service record of the plaintiff-appellant and no economic loss is even averred to have been caused to the respondent-State by non-joining of duty by the appellant.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Surinder Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Palwinder Singh, Senior DAG Punjab for the respondents and have carefully gone through the file.