The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Wednesbury principles, the principle of proportionality, and the doctrine of judicial review in disciplinary cases to determine the shockingly disproportionate punishment imposed on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, J. - The petitioner, a Clerk in the Government Senior Secondary School, Chand Bhan (Faridkot), Punjab, was dismissed from service, vide order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Director, Education Department (SE), Punjab. The same was confirmed in appeal by the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Punjab, vide order dated 17.02.2020. Hence, this writ petition.

2. The petitioner entered the service of the Punjab Education Department as a Clerk on 20.11.1992. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the year 2016 on the complaint made by the Principal of the Government Senior Secondary School, Chand Bhan, (Faridkot), that the petitioner had forged his signature on an undertaking given to a Bank while applying for a personal loan of Rs. 4.00 lakh. A preliminary inquiry was conducted and on the strength of the findings thereof, charge sheet dated 02.03.2017 was issued to the petitioner proposing to impose a major penalty upon him under Rule 5 (v to ix) read with Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (in short, 'the Rules of 1970').

3. By letters dated 29.08.2017 and 12.10.2017, the petitioner sought copies of certain documents to enable him to submit his reply on merits. By the later letter dated 12.10.2017, he also submitted his interim reply to the charge sheet claiming that the allegations against him were baseless and prayed that the charge sheet be withdrawn.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 01.10.2018 and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The disciplinary inquiry, which was held on just three days effectively, viz., 21.12.2018, 13.05.2019 and 21.05.2019, culminated in the Inquiry Report dated 10.06.2019. Thereby, the Inquiry Officer held the charge against the petitioner duly proved. Memo dated 24.07.2019 was issued to the petitioner by the Director, Education Department (SE), Punjab, and he was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 04.09.2019. The Director thereupon passed the order dated 16.10.2019 dismissing the petitioner from service under Rule 5 (ix) of the Rules of 1970.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Secretary, School Education Department, Punjab. Therein, he complained of procedural irregularities in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, viz., failure to supply him copies of necessary documents and denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal, vide order dated 17.02.2020, leading to the filing of this case.

6. The District Education Officer (SE), Faridkot, filed a reply on behalf of the respondents. Therein, he claimed that the due procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1970 had been adhered to scrupulously and asserted that no grounds were made out for interference with the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Perusal of the material placed on record reflects that, in the inquiry proceedings held on 21.12.2018, the petitioner complained that he had not been provided the documents and sought an adjournment as he had asked for permission to avail assistance of a legal expert. The inquiry proceedings were accordingly adjourned. On 13.05.2019, the petitioner informed the Inquiry Officer that he did not accept the charge levelled against him. He, however, sought time to file a reply. On 21.05.2019, the petitioner informed the Inquiry Officer that he had taken a personal loan of Rs. 4.00 lakh from the Cooperative Bank at Bathinda in June, 2016, and had repaid it in full. The Principal of the School made a statement that the petitioner had availed the loan by furnishing an undertaking wherein he had himself appended the signature of the Principal. The Inquiry Officer noted that the petitioner had not submitted his reply to the charge sheet but he had produced the 'No Dues Certificate' dated 13.02.2019 from the Bank in proof of repayment of the