Bichha Ram v. State Of Haryana And ORS

C. W. P. No. 6698 of 2013 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C. W. P. No. 6698 of 2013 Date of Decision : November 19, 2015 Bichha Ram ....

Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ....

Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * To be referred to Reporters or not ?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? * * * Present :

Mr. S. M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the punishment meted out to him for acts of omission and commission on his part.

Though the petition has been filed on several grounds, the only one pressed before me was the ground of discrimination in the quantum of punishment meted out to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner, along with one Lal Chand and Sat Pal Singh, was charge-sheeted

C. W. P. No. 6698 of 2013 2 on account of negligence with regard to verification of gate passes for entry into the Indian Oil Depot at Ambala. After all the delinquent officials had been found guilty, the petitioner had been inflicted the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, whereas the aforementioned Lal Chand and Sat Pal Singh had been inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and two increments with cumulative effect respectively. A perusal of the record shows that the proven misconduct on the part of the petitioner, who was serving the Haryana Police as a Head Constable, was that he had, without any verification whatsoever of as many as 183 forms, appended his signatures thereupon and permitted entries into the Indian Oil Depot at Ambala, which was a serious security lapse. The verification was done without there being requisite documents attached to such forms like residence proof etc.

So far as Lal Chand and Sat Pal Singh were concerned, they had verified only one form and 58 forms respectively, in contra-distinction to a whopping 183 forms by the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner was punished with a stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, whereas lesser punishments were given to Lal Chand and Sat Pal Singh. The gravity of the roles of the petitioner at one hand, and Lal Chand and Sat Pal Singh on the other, was distinct and the quantum of

C. W. P. No. 6698 of 2013 3 punishments, meted out to each of them, was keeping in view the same. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby ordered to be dismissed.

( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE November 19, 2015 monika