G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) Whether in exercise of his power as appellate authority under Rule 19(2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules'), the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (Respondent No. 2) could modify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed by Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for quashing of the order dated 21st April, 1999.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that Respondent No. 1 Surinder Kumar was employed as Mali -cum -Beldar in the Horticulture Department of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. By an order dated 29th March, 1994, the Superintendent Personnel suspended him on the allegation of negligence in the performance of duty and misbehaviour with his superiors. After two months, he was served with memo dated 27th May, 1994 issued under the signatures of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for initiation of departmental enquiry on the charges of absence from duty on 26th February, 1994 and 25th March, 1994 and threatening and abusing the S.D.O. (Horticulture). The enquiry officer appointed by the disciplinary authority submitted report dated 21st April, 1995 holding Respondent No. 1 guilty of the charges. He also recommended that the delinquent may be dealt with severely. After issuing show cause notice dated 22nd May, 1995, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 5th July, 1995 dismissing him from service. The appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 was partly allowed by Respondent No. 2 who modified the penalty of dismissal by directing that Respondent No. 1 shall stand reverted to the lower rank in the time scale of pay and the period between the date of dismissal and the date of the appellate order shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that Respondent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the well reasoned order of punishment passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and, therefore, the impugned order should be declared as nullity. He then argued that the view taken by Respondent No. 2 on the quantum of punishment awarded by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana should be declared as erroneous and perverse because the said Respondent totally overlooked the fact that Respondent No. 1 had been found guilty of gross indiscipline and insubordination. In support of his arguments, Shri Bakhshi relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in V.P. State Road Transport Corporation v/s. Subhash Chandra Sharma : AIR 2000 SC 1163.;