J.S. Khehar, J. - (1.) The petitioner was inducted into the service of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the HSEB) as a Lower Division Clerk on 12.10.1970. Prior thereto he had been engaged in the Armed Forces. After taking into consideration the service rendered by him in the Armed Forces, his date of entry into the service of the HSEB was notionally fixed as 1.10.1966. In 1982, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk.
(2.) On 10.5.1995, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. To effectively determine the controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce hereunder the summary of charges levelled against him.: "Shri Chatter Singh UDC while posted in Isranas/Divn. w.e.f. 22.6.89 to 7.1.91 committed the following acts of omissions and commissions which are unbecoming of an official of HSEB. 1. That he failed to exercise the 100% checking of CCR book with reference to duplicate copies of CCR books as laid down vide Para-d of MOI-13, thus violated the ibid instructions. 2. That he failed to prepare/get prepared the monthly abstract of CCR Book and tally the same with total cash received as per revenue cash book and relaxation posted into ledger. 3. That he failed to reconcile the cash relaxation posted into consumer ledger and tally with the total amount received as per CCR Book/REvenue cash book as required in terms of instructions contained in Secretary HSEB memo No. C AO/C AC-11/RF-6 0/4 460-4 940 Dated 11.6.82 which resulted in embezzlement of Rs. 6644361- made by Sh. Harjeet Singh C.A. as he did not detect the same. 4. That he has been negligent in performance of his duties of checking of CCR Books, consumers ledgers and reconciliation of cash relaxation as per instructions referred to above and caused financial loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 664436/- in connivance of Sh. Harjeet Singh CA and others. The above acts of omission and commission on the part of Shri Chatter Singh UDC constitute grave misconduct. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge sheet on 28.8.1996. Dissatisfied with the explanation tendered by the petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry was instituted against him. On 30.4.1997, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer arrived at the following conclusions:- "The argument of UDC to the effect that the ledgers of M.S. and L.S. were being maintained by the C.A. and he was the only UDC is the Sub Division and checking of posting in the consumer ledger could not be admitted and the charges are correct. The charges against para No. 2 does not relate to the official as the period during which embezzlement took place was before his joining in the Sub Division. Regarding allegations under para - 3 the official is responsible for checking the account of embezzlement took place upto 7.1.91 as such this allegation is correct. The arguments under para-4 regarding non-reconciliation of cash are not admitable. As such this charge is also proved against the defendant." Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Punishing Authority issued a show cause notice dated 9.12.1997 to the petitioner, proposing the punishment of removal from service on account of the charges proved against him. On 29.12.1997, the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice. On 17.8.1998 after considering his reply and taking into consideration the amount embezzled by Shri Harjeet Singh C.A., the Punishing Authority inflicted upon the petitioner he proposed punishment of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal from service. He also sought a personal hearing. After the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing on 26.4.1999, the Appellate Authority upheld the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Punishing Authority. Taking into consideration the gravity of charges the Appellate Authority concurred even with respect to the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, finding the same to be just and proper. The petitioner has impugned the orders passed by the Punishing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority through the instant writ petition.
(3.) The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment inflicted upon him is excessive and disproportionate to the charges proved against him. To substantiate the aforesaid contention, it is pointed out that others against whom charges manifolds more serious than the charges levelled against the petitioner had been established, have been let off with relatively lesser punishments. In this behalf, pointed attention of this Court has been invited to averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition as well as the reply filed thereto by the respondents. To appreciate the contentions of the rival parties, paragraph 15 of the writ petition as well as its reply are reproduced hereunder:- "That it is pertinent to mention here that the immediate superior of the petitioner i.e. Harjit Singh, Commercial Assistant was charged of embezzlement amounting to Rs. 72,07,849.45 Ps. and other negligent and malicious acts. It is further pertinent to mention here that the said Harjit Singh worked in the Israna Sub Division as Commercial Assistant from the year 1987 to 1993. The petitioner was charged only for negligence and failure in pointing out the embezzlement amounting to Rs. 6,34,436/- by one Harjit Singh, during his posting in the Israna Sub. Divn. under the subordination of Harjit Singh. However, the said Harjit Singh who was the main culprit of the said scam was only awarded penalty of ⅓rd cut in the pension and his gratuity/leave encashment was adjusted and his suspension period was treated as leave of the kind due. The true copy of the order dated 21.7.98 to this effect is attached as Annexure P/12. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner further brought into light the penalty imposed on one H.C. Arora who was SDO, charged for negligence in highlighting the embezzlement amounting to Rs. 21.12 lacs. However, he was awarded penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect only. Therefore, it manifestly clear that the appellate authority erred in thrusting the whole responsibility on the petitioner. Copy of the penalty awarded to H.C. Arora is appended as Annexure P.13." Para 15 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents reads as under:- "That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that Harjit Singh CAof Israna Sub Division was the main culprit in the said embezzlement case. But however, the petitioner had also done lapses at his level also. The punishment was inflicted to the said Harjit Singh CA also as well as to all those officials who remained posted at Israna at that time and committed lapses of non pointing out the embezzlement being made by Harjit Singh, CA. It is submitted that the petitioner has made mis-statement of fact that the suspension period of Sh. Harjit Singh was treated as leave of the kind due whereas the said period was treated as nonduty period for all intents and purposes. Since Sh. Harjit Singh had already retired from service, therefore, ⅓rd cut in pension was imposed and the gratuity/leave encashment was ordered to be adjusted against loss suffered by the Board. Even otherwise the petitioner cannot get any benefit by making a plea of discrimination in punishment as it is to be seen by the punishing authority as to what punishment is to be inflicted upon the employee. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that another person has been given less punishment yets would not employ that the petitioner has a right to be exonerated. It has been held in various judgments that the order of punishment cannot be quashed on the ground that some similarly situated employees were given such punishments. The answering respondents are placing reliance upon the various judgments reported as 1997 (4) RSJ (DB) 386 : 1997(4) SCT 437, Surat Singh v. Presiding Officer , 1997 (4) RSJ (DB) 539 : 1997 (4) Punjab and Haryana SCT 767, Gurcharan Singh v. Presiding Officer , 1997(3) RSJ (DB) 581 : 1997 (3) P&HG SCT 425, Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab , 1997 (2) RSJ SC 840 : 1997 (2) SCT 467, Balbir Chand v. FCI (SC) ". In addition to the aforesaid averments by which comparison of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner has been made with the punishments imposed upon Harjeet Singh and H.C. Arora, our attention has also been drawn to a compilation made by the petitioner which has been appended to the writ petition as Annexure P. 16. A perusal of the aforesaid compilation reveals that Dilbagh Singh (a Sub Divisional Officer) was charged with embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 4.61 lacs, and the only punishment inflicted upon him was for recovery of 10% of the embezzled amount from his retiral benefits. In the case of Raj Singh Kundu, (also a Sub Divisional Officer) against whom the alleged embezzlement was of a sum of approximately Rs. 25.00 lacs, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and 15% recovery of the embezzled amount was imposed. Against V.P. Gandhi (an Upper Division Clerk), while the charge related to the embezzlement of Rs. 1.71 lacs, the punishment inflicted upon him was, stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect in addition to recovery of 30% of the embezzled amount. Likewise P.N. Jain (another, Upper Division Clerk) against whom the charge was embezzlement of Rs. 48,719/-, the punishment inflicted was, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, in addition to recovery of 20% of the embezzled amount. In the case of Chattar Bhuj Gupta (another, Upper Division Clerk), the alleged embezzled amount was Rs. 4,13,401.45 paise, and the punishment inflicted was of stoppage of 4 increments with cumulative effect plus recovery of 20% of the embezzled amount.;