The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial interference in departmental enquiries and the punishment awarded, highlighting that unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the court cannot interfere with it.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 16-1-2017 passed by respondent no. 1 by which the punishment of termination imposed by respondent no. 3, has been modified to Compulsory Retirement.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition in short are that the petitioner was working as Forest Guard. A charge sheet dated 11-12-2010 was issued to the petitioner on the following charges:

1. After revocation of his suspension order on 22-8-2009, the petitioner remained on unauthorized absence till 24-11-2009.

2. Letter dated 31-10-2009 was sent to the petitioner thereby directing him to report on duty. When the peons were affixing the letter on the wall of the house of the petitioner, then they were attacked by the wife and son of the petitioner, and the cycle of the peons was snatched.

3. The petitioner was posted as O.S.D. In game range Sabalgarh, but he is on an unauthorized absence from 1-7-2010.

3. The departmental enquiry was conducted. The Dy. D.F.O. was appointed as enquiry officer. The petitioner did not file any reply to the charge sheet, but participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer, in his enquiry report found that all the charges were proved.

4. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, along with the enquiry report, but he did not respond, and demanded additional documents. Accordingly, he was informed that all the documents which were relied upon the enquiry officer, have already been provided to him. Accordingly, a reminder was sent for submitting his reply by 20-7-2013. The letter sent by respondent no. 3 was received by the petitioner on 15-7-2013, but he did not respond to the show cause notice. Then again another letter dated 23-3-2013 was sent, thereby giving a further opportunity to file his reply, but the petitioner did not respond although the reminder was received by him on 2-9-2013.

5. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority perused the record. So far as the charge no. 2 is concerned, it was held that the witnesses had failed to identify the assailants as son and wife of the petitioner and accordingly, it was held that charge no. 2 was not found proved, but the enquiry report with regard to charge no. 1 and 3 was accepted. For considering the question of punishment, the respondent no. 3 also considered the previous conduct of the petitioner and found that in the year 1985, warning was given for his negligence in discharge of duties. In the year 2001, a punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed for remaining on unauthorized absence. Similarly in the year 2006, he was given censure for negligence in his duties. In the year 2009, warning was given for misbehaving with store keeper. In the year 2012, a departmental enquiry was conducted and punishment of reduction of his pay scale to the minimum of his pay scale till his superannuation was awarded. Thus, considering the previous conduct of the petitioner, the punishment of termination from service was imposed.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partially allowed and the punishment of termination was modified to compulsory retirement.

7. Challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that since, the petitioner was seriously sick, therefore, he could not report on his duty and the punishment of compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate. It is further submitted that the order of punishment is bad in law on the ground of double jeopardy. It is further submitted that since, the order of revocation of suspension was not served on the petitioner, therefore, when the notice in this regard was published in the news paper, then the petitioner, immediately submitted his joining. It is further submitted that since, the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance till 24-11-2009, therefore, i