Ravinder Kumar vs Punjab and Haryana High Court and Another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner has challenged by way of filing the present writ petition the order dated 8.1.2006 (Annexure P-6), whereby the extreme penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. Further challenge is the order dated 7.12.2010 (Annexure P-7), whereby the service appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has not been accepted. Facts in brief would require notice. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Process Server on 11.12.1974. He was subsequently promoted as Additional Ahlmad on 30.6.1997. He was charge-sheeted in the year 2006 and the article of charge framed against him was that white being posted as Fine Clerk in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate he had retained certain sums of money deposited towards fine for the period between 1 to 12 days prior to depositing the same in the Treasury. The second limb of the charge against the petitioner was that even for certain days in the month of August, 2005 when he had availed leave and had not come present on duty, he had collected a certain fine amount from the officials of the court illegally. The petitioner submitted the reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. An inquiry report dated 29.5.2007 was submitted, wherein findings were returned against the petitioner and as such the charge relating to late deposit of fine was duly proved on record. The petitioner was, thereafter, served with a show cause notice along with the copy of the inquiry report, wherein the major penalty of dismissal from service was tentatively proposed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and was even given an opportunity of hearing on 4.8.2007, Vide order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Hisar the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a service appeal against the order of dismissal, which was taken up by this Court on the administrative side and vide order dated 7.12.2010 the service appeal stands dismissed.

Mr. Hari Om Attri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has at the very outset submitted that he would confine the scope of the present petition only as regards the quantum of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that the charge against the petitioner could not be construed as embezzlement of money in the eyes of law but it was only a delay in the deposit of fine. As such, it has been submitted that keeping in view the length of service of the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service is wholly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. Learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in cases of Hussaini Vs. Hon. Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others, and Inderjit v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and another, reported as 2010 (12) SCC 530 to contend that a lesser penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case would have met the ends of justice.

Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued that in the facts of the present case there would be no scope for any leniency to be shown to the petitioner. Learned counsel would argue that apart from the fact that the petitioner had been found guilty in pursuance to a regular departmental inquiry, wherein the complete procedure had been followed and the rules of natural justice had been observed, the petitioner''s past record of service was not without blemish. Learned counsel for the respondents would refer to the averments made in para 2 of the written statement, wherein even on ten past occasions the petitioner had either been warned or had been imposed a fine ranging from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 200/-. Accordingly, it has been submitted that keeping in view the charge of embezzlement, be it temporary having been fully established and on the basis of his past record the penalty of dismissal from service was fully justified.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the case file, I find that no exception can be taken with a view that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in service. No benefit can be drawn from the distinction between embezzlement and a temporary embezzlement i.e. a mere late deposit of the fine by the petitioner. The gravity of the charge as regards dereliction of duties and misconduct cannot be diluted in any manner. Yet, I feel constrained in not overlooking the fact that the petitioner has rendered 33 years of service. Accordingly, I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if, the order of dismissal is converted to an order of compulsory retirement. In taking such a view, I am also influenced in terms of pleadings in the present petition, wherein the petitioner has averred that he is carrying the burden of two unmarried daughters and also a school going son. The grant of pensionary benefits would ensure that the petitioner and his family are not reduced to a state of complete penury and destitution. For the reasons, recorded above, I direct the respondent-authorities to substitute the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 8.1.2008 into an order of compulsory retirement. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to the pensionary benefits, which are to be calculated from the date of passing of the present order i.e. w.e.f. 3-8-2012. Consequently, it is directed that the respondents carry out the exercise of working out the pensionary benefits of the petitioner w.e.f. 3.8.2012 and release the same to the petitioner within a period of two months.

Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.