SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Variava, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 943 of 2002. D/d. 4.2.2002.

Inderjit - Appellant

Versus

Punjab and Haryana High Court and another - Respondents

Dismissal from Service - Absence from duty - Departmental enquiry - Proportionality of punishment - Chowkidar in Civil Court was dismissed from Service on the ground of his absence from duty when raid conducted in Civil Court - Respondent however further alleged additional ground in affidavit failed in Supreme Court that appellant also allowed outsiders to consume liguor in Court premises - Held, not a subject-matter of charge hence ignored - Further held, penalty of dismissal imposed due to absenteeism was disproportionate hence reduced to stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect - Back wages not allowed to appellant.

[Paras 6 and 7]

ORDER

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. - Leave is granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. On the relevant date the appellant was posted as a chowkidar in the Court Complex at Barnala, in District Sangrur. On 14-6-1996, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) made a surprise visit to the court at about 7.30 p.m. It was found, among other facts, that the appellant was not on duty. On that charge an enquiry was conducted against the appellant. He was found guilty of the charge by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer and dismissed the appellant from service. On appeal to the High Court (on the administrative side), the punishment of dismissal of the appellant was confirmed by order dated 1-2-2000. Against that order the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9633 of 2000 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. A Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated 27-7-2000, upheld the order of punishment awarded to the appellant as confirmed by the High Court on appeal on the administrative side. That order of the Division Bench is under challenge in this appeal.

4. On 30-7-2001, we issued notice to show cause as to why the impugned order of dismissal should not be converted into an order of compulsory retirement.

5. On behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, filed a counter-affidavit. He stated, inter alia, as follows:

"Shri G.S. Saran (Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division) in his statement clearly stated that the petitioner herein was absent from his duty at the time when raid was conducted and had returned after some time and stated that he had gone for changing his clothes.

It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner herein was not only absent from his duty but had also allowed outsiders to take liquor in the court premises and, therefore, was guilty for negligence and dereliction in performing his official duties and allowing an outsider to take liquor in the court premises which amounts to grave misconduct."

6. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On the basis of the charge that the appellant was absent from duty and the finding of the enquiry officer that he was guilty of the charge, we are of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal as well as the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement in the notice, would be wholly disproportionate to the misconduct of which the appellant is found guilty. We find no substance in the contention of the respondents that "he was not only absent from his duty but had also allowed outsiders to take liquor in the court premises and, therefore, was guilty for negligence and dereliction in performing his official duties and allowing an outsider to take liquor in the court premises which amounts to grave misconduct" as that was not the charge against the appellant.

7. On these facts, we consider it just and proper to substitute punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect in the place of dismissal from service. The order of punishment shall stand modified accordingly. The order of the High Court under challenge is set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated into service. However, we make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to any back wages. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

There shall no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.