Punjab-Haryana High Court
Durga Dass vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 November, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Shekher Dhawan
CWP No.23132 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23132 of 2014
Date of decision:- 13.11.2014.
Durga Dass
......Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. N.P. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh whereby his Original Application challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 21.11.2011 as well as the appellate order etc., has been dismissed.
2. The Tribunal has briefly noticed the fact that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 15.02.2010 alleging that he willfully and deliberately claimed overtime for several dates from the year 2006 to 2008 for the period when he was otherwise obligated to perform his routine duty. The other allegation was that he tampered SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.23132 of 2014 -2- with the office record of the electricity bill though such tampering pertained to a paltry amount of Rs.120/- only. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty. In fact the petitioner himself admitted his guilt as he regretted the omissions and commissions pleading further that he was ready and willing to pay the over-payment amount. The inquiry report was duly served on the petitioner. Having regard to the total service of more than 30 years rendered by the petitioner, the competent authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement only. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed the departmental appeal etc. His Original Application has also been turned down by the Tribunal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper book. Two fold contentions are raised. Firstly, it is argued that the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' is disproportionate to the nature of charges proved against the petitioner and it must prick the conscious of the Court. Secondly, the action of the Authorities is violative of principles of natural justice and fairplay as the Revisional Authority-respondent No.2 did not accord any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
4. In our considered view, both the submissions merit rejection. We say so for the reason that though the charges proved against the petitioner are of misappropriation and wrongful withdrawl of amount from the State Exchequer and thus impinge on his integrity, yet the Competent Authority having regard to the length of SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.23132 of 2014 -3- his service decided to retire him compulsorily which would obviously entitle him to avail the retiral benefits. The punishment cannot be said to be excessive of a degree to be interfered by this Court.
5. As regards to the grievance of violation of principles of natural justice by the Revisional Authority, no statutory rule is pointed out mandating personal hearing before deciding the revision petition. That apart, it is a case where the petitioner, candidly admitted his fault and agreed to refund the excess amount drawn by him on more than one occasions. In the light of such admission, it was not necessary for the Revisional Authority to hear him in person. No case to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal is made out.
6. Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SHEKHER DHAWAN) JUDGE November 13, 2014.
sandeep sethi SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document