AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, J.—Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner while he was working as Chowkidar in Forest Working Division, Sundernagar, under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Annexure-PA. D.M., F.W.D., Mandi was appointed as inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. Charge No. 2 stood proved against the Petitioner. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the report furnished by the inquiry officer, imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs. 4,668/- and withholding of one increment without cumulative effect vide office order dated 01.12.2001.
Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the disciplinary proceedings have not been conducted in accordance with law. According to him, there was violation of the principles of natural justice. He further argued that his client was never put on duty on the intervening night of 9th and 10th December, 1998
Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation has supported and justified the office order dated 01.12.2001.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the inquiry report (Annexure-PB). The inquiry officer has taken into consideration the statement of Shri Jiwan Malhotra, Assistant Manager, Pangna, who has specifically deposed that the duties were assigned to the Chowkidars by the concerned beat depot Incharges. The inquiry officer has also taken into consideration the statement of defence witness Shri Nand Lal. Charge No. 2 was duly proved, which pertained to the theft of resin filled tins. Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, learned Counsel has also failed to point out any infraction of mandatory provisions of Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the inquiry report, has imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs. 4,668/- and withholding of one increment without cumulative effect vide office order dated 01.12.2001. The penalty imposed upon the Petitioner commensurate with the mis-conduct. It is neither harsh nor dis-proportionate. In view of this, the Court will not interfere with the order of punishment dated 01.12.2001.
Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.