JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 25.07.2000 (Annexure P/3) vide which increments without cumulative effect of petitioner have been stopped and he has been denied the salary for the period for which the petitioner had remained out of service as well as issue a further writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the full back wages the period the petitioner remained out of service, alongwith other benefits and interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner was appointed as Helper Welder on 04.06.1976 through Employment Exchange on a regular basis in Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon Depot. On 17.11.1995, a false complaint was made against the petitioner by SSI Mr. Waryam Singh alleging overwriting in the attendance register, misbehaviour with officers, and late reporting by 1 hour and 30 minutes.

3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 05.01.1996 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (in short as 1987 Rules). The petitioner duly submitted his reply and a departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report.

4. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 25.01.1999 proposing removal from service was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted a detailed reply. Despite the same, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 22.07.1999 (Annexure P-1) without proper appreciation of facts and by imposing a punishment disproportionate to the alleged charges.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 14.08.1999 (Annexure P-2) before respondent No.2. The appellate authority, vide order dated 25.07.2000 (Annexure P-3), set aside the termination order and substituted the penalty with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect, while maintaining continuity of service and seniority. Also, the petitioner was denied back wages for the period he remained out of service.

6. Being aggrieved by the punishment imposed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Contentions On Behalf Of The Petitioner

7. Learned counsel submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were trivial in nature and did not constitute such grave misconduct as would warrant the imposition of a major penalty. The entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of a false and motivated complaint, and the charges were neither serious nor supported by cogent evidence.

8. It is further contended that during the course of the departmental enquiry, no substantive material was brought on record to establish the allegations of overwriting in the attendance register or misbehaviour with the officers. The Enquiry Officer failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and arrived at findings which are perverse and unsustainable in law. In fact, the only allegation that could even remotely be said to have been established was that the petitioner reported late on one occasion by approximately one and a half hours. Even if the said allegation is taken to be correct for the sake of argument, the same at best amounts to a minor lapse and not a misconduct of such gravity as to justify stoppage of two annual increments.

9. Learned counsel submits that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and shocks the conscience. The doctrine of proportionality, which is well settled in service jurisprudence, mandates that the penalty must commensurate with the gravity of the charge. In the present case, a solitary instance of reporting late by 1.5 hours cannot be equated with serious misconduct warranting financial penalty affecting the petitioner’s service benefits.

10. With regards to the denial of grant of backwages, it is argued that once the appellate authority set aside the order of termination and granted continuity of service, there wa