IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.02.2025 K.B. SHARMA ….PETITIONER Vs.

ADMINSTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Suman Jain, Advocate and Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.06.1999 (Annexure P-7) whereby he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

2. The petitioner joined Chandigarh Administration as Junior Engineer in 1969. He was given charge of Superintending Engineer (B&R) in 1992. The respondent initiated departmental proceedings against him alleging absence from duty. The Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 21.06.1999 (Annexure-7) whereby punishment of forfeiture of two increments was awarded.

The order dated 21.06.1999 is reproduced as below:-

“OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHANDIGARH.

ORDER No.CMC/Estt.I/E-I/99/7412 Dated:21.6.99 Whereas, Shri K.B. Sharma, Superintending Engineer (B&R), Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (Under Suspension) was served a memo of charges under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970, as applicable to the employees of Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide memorandum bearing No.CMC/SAE-1/E- I/98/5455 dated 17.7.1998 for committing gross misconduct by willfully absenting himself from duty.

2. And whereas, after considering the reply dated 11.8.1998 of the said Shri K.B. Sharma to the above charge- sheet, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges framed against him.

3. And whereas, the said Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 11.3.1999 and a copy thereof was sent to the said Shri K.B. Sharma vide Memo No.CMC/SAE-I/E- I/99/2472, dated 5.4.1999 with an opportunity to make representation, if any, on the Inquiry Report.

4. And whereas, the said Shri K.B. Sharma made a representation dated 9.4.1999 to the said Inquiry Report.

5. And whereas after considering the inquiry report dated 11.3.1999 and also the representation dated 9.4.99 of Shri K.B. Sharma, I being the Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion that the first component of the first charge levelled against the aforesaid Shri K.B. Sharma that the said Shri Sharma absented from duty w.e.f. 8.6.98 without getting his leave sanctioned from the Competent Authority, has not been fully proved but the second component of the first charge that Shri Sharma did not give his address and telephone number to the office of the Chief Engineer and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh stands proved beyond any doubt. The second charge of not contacting his immediate superior and showing in-

subordination also stands proved against the aforesaid Shri K.B. Sharma. In view of this, I am of the considered view that a penalty should be imposed upon the aforesaid Shri K.B.

Sharma.

6. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under the aforesaid Rules of 1970, I hereby impose a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect on the aforesaid Shri K.B. Sharma.

By order and in the name of the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh Sd/-

(S.K. Gathwal) IAS, Commissioner Dated, Chandigarh the:-

29^th May, 1999”

3. Scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court has no power to look into quantum of sentence/punishment unless and until Court finds that sentence awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence. It is further settled proposition of law that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can look into the procedure followed by authorities. In case, it is found that enquiry officer or disciplinary au