Jaspal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner, who is a retired Principal from the Education Department, State of Punjab, has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Secretary, School Education Department, Punjab, whereby a punishment of a 5% deduction in his pension from the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.5.2011 has been imposed. Brief facts that would require notice are that the petitioner while serving as Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Mehta Nangal, District Amritsar was issued a charge sheet dated 24.3.2011 on the following Articles of Charge:-

1) Lapses in Administration as Controller of Examination Centre on dated 06.03.2010.

2) Negligence in his duty.

3) Forcible entry into the Examination Centre along with Sh. Balwinder Singh, S.S. Master.

4) Although the Centre Superintendent S. Jaspal Jit Singh, Lecturer was slapped by Sh. Balwinder Singh teacher in his presence yet the C.O. kept silent.

The reply submitted by the petitioner having been found to be unsatisfactory, an Inquiry Officer was duly appointed for conducting a regular departmental inquiry. The inquiry report was furnished on 29.11.2011, whereby the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be duly proved. Copy of the inquiry report was duly served upon the petitioner and he was given opportunity to file objections to the same. Thereafter, after grant of a personal hearing the impugned order has been passed imposing the penalty of 5% cut in pension. Suffice it to notice that even the Punjab Public Service Commission has accorded approval for imposition of such penalty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily assail the impugned order raising a plea of discrimination. Counsel would assert that the main culprit in the entire incident, whereby the petitioner in the capacity of the Principal had entered into the Examination Centre was one Sh. Balwinder Singh, S.S. Master, who in turn had slapped the Centre Superintendent and would submit that the aforesaid Sh. Balwinder Singh has gone scot free and in fact has even been promoted to a higher post. It has been argued that merely on account of the fact that the petitioner was holding the post of Principal that he has been made the scapegoat and has had to bear the entire brunt of the charge as also the incident.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves dismissal.

The impugned order dated 19.10.2012 at Annexure P-4 has been passed towards culmination of regular departmental proceedings. Precise Articles of Charge were framed against the petitioner and the same were, thereafter, gone into in regular departmental proceedings. Counsel has not been able to point out any irregularity that may have been conducted during the inquiry proceedings. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not to act as a Court of Appeal so as to re-appraise and re-appreciate evidence. The scope of judicial scrutiny in such matters would be confined to the decision making process and not to the decision itself.

The charges levelled against the petitioner while holding a responsible position of the post of Principal and thereafter, having been duly proved are serious in nature. There was an attempt to persuade a Superintendent of the Examination Centre to permit the students to resort to copying. The Superintendent of the Examination Centre having refused to toe the line of the Principal, an S.S. Master accompanying the petitioner had even slapped the Superintendent. The petitioner had remained a mute witness to this incident. Not only this, he chose not to even report such matter to the higher authorities. It is against such factual backdrop that the petitioner has been held guilty of a serious lapse in administration as Controller of the Examination Centre as also negligence in his duties. These are matters in which there would be no scope of any leniency.

Even the argument of discrimination raised by the counsel is wholly misconceived. Assuming the concerned employee namely Sh. Balwinder Singh, S.S. Master having also been involved in the incident and thereafter having not been awarded any penalty, still the petitioner cannot be absolved of his responsibility while working on the post of Principal as also Controller of an Examination Centre.

In an overview of the matter, I do not find any basis that would warrant interference in the impugned order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P-4), whereby a penalty of 5% cut in pension has been imposed. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.