Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Vs. Narinder Singh Nirdosh  INSC
425 (10 April 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
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.
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.
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:
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.
misappropriation of 17 bales and 242 `A' Class bags in connivance with Shri Gurmail
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
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 of two increments. Calling that finding in question,
this appeal came to be filed.
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.
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.
appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the respondent is not appearing,
appearing, no costs.