Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.7.2008/8.8.2008 (P -6) vide which the Petitioner was awarded the punishment of reduction in rank from Assistant Estate Officer to Superintendent Grade -I and recovery of Rs. 5.00 Lac was ordered as well as for quashing the order dated 31.12.2010 (P -10) vide which the Statutory Appeal of the Petitioner against the order dated 29.7.2008/8.8.2008 (P -6) was dismissed by the Chief Secretary, Haryana -cum -Vice Chairman, Haryana Urban Development Authority i.e. the Appellate Authority in the present case.
(2.) WHILE praying for quashing of the impugned orders, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the whole action was contrary to the Rule 7(6) of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987), in as much as, the inquiry officer held the Charge No. 1 as only partly proved against the Petitioner but the punishing authority without recording any decenting note held the Charge No. 1 as proved against the Petitioner and therefore proceeded to impose the punishment on the Petitioner on the presumption that charge No. 1 had been fully proved against the Petitioner. Secondly, the present case was of no evidence and admittedly the Petitioner had not committed any misconduct. It was contended that the Petitioner was not held guilty of any connivance with the Estate Officer. Moreover, the 8 officers' committee found that no charge of connivance had been proved against the Petitioner. In spite of the same, the Petitioner has been punished for no fault of his.
(3.) LASTLY , the punishment awarded to the Petitioner was excessive. Whereas, one Mohan Lal Assistant, who was issued same charge sheet and was awarded reduction in rank from Assistant to Clerk was let off by the Appellate Authority with only stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect. Heard.;