PUN.TAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN., LTD.,
CHANDIGARH AND ORS.
v.
NARINDER SINGH NTRDOSH
APRIL 10, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Service Law :
A
B
Misconduct-Enquiry conducted-Instead of dismissal reduction in
C
rank ordered-High Court holdin1; thut punishment was disprop01tio11ate
though misconduct proved and ordered stoppage of two increme11ts-011
appeal held, the misconduct is a grave one and the punishment of reversion
bein1; very ve1y lenient one High Cowt wholly i11c01rect in reducing the
punishment which is 1101 wa11w1ted in law.
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 273 of
1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.87 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2968 of 1987.
M.S. Gujral, Ms. J.S. Wad, Manoj Wad and Abraham N.A. for the
Appellants.
J.D. Jain (NP) for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2968/87 dated 19.11.1987.
D
E
F
The few facts necessary for disposal of the case are that while the
respondent was working as Inspector in the Punjab Civil Supplies Corpora-
G
tion, he was made incharge of the Wheat procured by the Government and
weighment in that behalf. In 1980 while he was working in Patiala, he was
found to have filled up the wheat bags with husk and thereby misap-
propriated huge stock of the wheat. Taking a lenient view, the authorities
stoppedtwo increments after the enquiry and he was transferred to Gugha H
829
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 3 S.C.R.
A in Patiala District. Thereat also he repeated the misconduct. As a conse-
quence, a chargesheet was served upon him on April 24, 1985. The charges
levied against him read as under :
B
c
"(a) For connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh in replacement of
new wheat of 1984-85 with 1557 bags of rejected wheat in godowns
and for misappropriation and embazzlement of wheat stock.
(b) For misappropriation of 17 bales and 242 'A' Class bags in
connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh Inspector.
(c) For Misappropriation and embazzlement of 1292-3200
quintals wheat which was given in short by Sh1i Gurmail Singh
while handing over charge, in connivance with Gurmail Singh.
Separate charge-sheet was given to Gurmail Singh''.
After conducting the enquiry, instead of dismissing him from service,
D the authorities reduced his rank of Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector which
came to be challenged in the High Court. In the impugned order, the High
Court has held that the punishment was disproportionate, though the
misconduct was proved. Instead, he should be given stoppage of two
increments. Calling that finding in question, this appeal came to be filed.
E
F
In view of the settled legal position that the disciplinary authority, on
the basis of the magnitude of the misconduct, is empowered to impose the
punishment appropriate to the situation, the High Court is unjustified in
interfering with the punishment of reversion, as most lenient view was taken
by the Government. The nature of the punishment depends upon the
magnitude of the misconduct. Since the misconduct in question is a grave
one and the punishment of reversion itself being a very very too lenient
one, the High Court is wholly incorrect in reducing the punishment which
is not at all warranted in law.
G
The appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the respondent 1s not
appearing, no costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex