Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this court seeking quashing of the orders (Annexures P-4 and P-6), whereby he was inflicted punishment of stoppage of four increments with future effect and the appeal against the order of punishing authority was dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on ad-hoc basis on 9.7.1971. He resigned from the aforesaid post on 22.5.1972 and on selection on regular basis was appointed on 7.6.1972. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet for alleged lapses during the period from 9.7.1971 to 22.5.1972. Enquiry Officer was appointed, who opined that the petitioner was not solely responsible as the then Sub Divisional Engineer was at fault, who had failed to comply with the Rules of the Department. Despite this, the punishing authority inflicted punishment of stoppage of four increments with future effect, however, the order shows that he was imposing minor punishment of stoppage of four increments with future effect. Once the punishment imposed was minor, the condition regarding its future effect was uncalled for. The appellate authority also did not consider the case set up by the petitioner that he was raw hand and did not know the procedure. Even the Enquiry Officer had also found that the then Sub Divisional Engineer was at fault. It was further submitted that though the petitioner as well as the Sub Divisional Engineer were charge-sheeted together, however, the punishment inflicted upon the then Sub Divisional Engineer was stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect which, in appeal, was reduced to censure. As the petitioner was similarly placed, there could not be any discrimination in imposition of punishment.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were serious. Despite the fact that he was merely on ad-hoc basis at that time, he fabricated muster rolls, entered the names of the workmen in his own hand and had even shown the payment to them by putting his own thumb impressions. The same was duly proved from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. Attempt was made to defraud the Government. With the aforesaid proven charge, the punishment inflicted on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate. He further submitted that once the order of punishment clearly shows that stoppage of increments was with future effect, it clearly meant that the same was major. Merely because the word "minor" has been mentioned will not make it a minor punishment. Even otherwise, seeing the proven charge against the petitioner, he did not deserve to be punished with minor punishment, rather, the order passed by the punishing authority shows that a lenient view had been taken against him.;