Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NARINDER SINGH NIRDOSH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2968/87 dated
19.11.1987.
The few facts necessary for disposal of the case are
that while the respondent was working as Inspector in the
Punjab Civil Supplies Corporation, he was made incharge of
the Wheat procured by the Government and weighment in that
behalf. In 1980 while he was working in Patiala, he was
found to have filled up the wheat bags with husk and thereby
misappropriated huge stock of the wheat. Taking a lenient
view, the authorities stopped two increments after the
enquiry and he was transferred to Gugha in Patiala District.
Thereat also he repeated the misconduct. As a consequence, a
chargesheet was served upon him on April 24, 1985. The
charges levied against him read as under:
"a) For connivance with Shri
Gurmail Singh in replacement of new
wheat of 1984-85 with 1557 bags of
rejected wheat in godowns and for
misappropriation and embazzlement
of wheat stock.
b) For misappropriation of 17
bales and 242 ‘A’ Class bags in
connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh
Inspector.
c) For misappropriation and
embazzlement of 1292-3200 quintals
wheat which was given in short by
Shri Gurmail Singh while handing
over charge, in connivance with
Gurmail Singh.
Separate charge-sheet was
given to Gurmail Singh."
After conducting the enquiry, instead of dismissing him
from service, the authorities reduced his rank of Inspector
to that of Sub-Inspector which came to of challenged in the
High Court. Court. In the impugned order, the High Court has
held that the punishment was disproportionate, though the
misconduct was proved. Instead, he should be given stoppage
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of two increments. Calling that finding in question, this
appeal came to be filed.
In view of the settled legal position that the
disciplinary authority, on the basis of the magnitude of the
misconduct, is empowered to impose the punishment
appropriate to the situation, the High Court is unjustified
in interfering with the punishment of reversion, as most
lenient view was taken by the Government. The nature of the
punishment depends upon the magnitude of the misconduct.
Since the misconduct is question is a grave one and the
punishment of reversion itself being a very very too lenient
one, the High Court is wholly incorrect in reduring the
punishment which is not at all warranted in law.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the respondent
is not appearing, appearing, no costs.