Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishakha Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
CWP No.8752 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8752 of 2014
Date of decision:8.7.2014
Vishakha Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') on 12.11.2013 whereby the punishment of reduction to initial pay of Commercial Clerk i.e. Rs.5200/- in the pay band of Rs.5200- 20200 (Grade Pay Rs.2000/-) with cumulative effect for a period of six years imposed upon the petitioner, remained unsuccessful.
The petitioner while working as Inquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk at Bathinda was involved in a brawl with the Vigilance Officers who had raided the Railway Station, Bathinda. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 20.03.2001 for non-cooperation with Vigilance Team. In an ex-parte inquiry, the petitioner was imposed penalty of reduction in lower stage i.e. Rs.3200-4900, at basic pay of Rs.3200/- with cumulative effect for five years. However, the said order was set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 31.10.2007. The matter was inquired again by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 31.05.2009 (Annexure P-6) Diwakar Gulati 2014.07.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8752 of 2014 2 finding the charges framed against the petitioner proved to the extent that he interrupted and obstructed the Vigilance check being conducted by the Vigilance Team at Bathinda Reservation Office on 31.10.2001. Thereafter, inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity to represent against the findings recorded, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service on 07.09.2009 (Annexure P-9). The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 28.10.2009 (Annexure P-11). However, in further revision vide order dated 11.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) the revision was accepted considering the penalty of removal from service as harsh. Therefore, it was reduced to initial pay of Commercial Clerk i.e. Rs.5200/- in pay band of Rs.5200-20200 (Grade Pay Rs.2000/-) with cumulative effect for a period of six years. The petitioner submitted another representation for re-considering the reduction to initial pay, which also remained unsuccessful on 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The proceedings before the Tribunal remained unsuccessful. Still aggrieved, the petitioner is in writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings leading to the order of punishment. The Inquiry Officer who conducted inquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner has concluded that the petitioner has interrupted and obstructed the Vigilance check being conducted by Vigilance team. Therefore, the penalty of removal was imposed after giving due opportunity of hearing and after supply of the copy of the inquiry report. Though, the appeal was dismissed but the order of punishment has been modified in revision.
Diwakar Gulati 2014.07.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8752 of 2014 3
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the decision making process. The only argument raised is that the punishment imposed is harsh. While exercising the power of judicial review, the Tribunal or for that matter this Court does not examine the ultimate decision nor generally the quantum of punishment but only examine the decision making process. No illegality could be pointed out by the petitioner in the decision making process.
We do not find any ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 8, 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
'D. Gulati' JUDGE
Diwakar Gulati
2014.07.11 10:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document