D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been punished for the misconduct, vide order dated 12th March, 2004 (annexure 3 to the memo of the petition) and against this order, an appeal was preferred, which has also been dismissed by order dated 29th October, 2005 and 2nd November, 2005 (Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition). These orders are under challenge mainly on the ground that charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved and further on the ground that more than one punishment have been awarded by the respondents and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is a dual punishment.
(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents submitted that though the petitioner is holding a responsible post, i.e. that of Medical Superintendent, he, without traveling, has claimed Leave Travel Concession allowance and for that purpose he has given fake ticket numbers and therefore, he was given chargesheet and ultimately, the petitioner has admitted the charges and he has been awarded a minor punishment of withholding next promotion for a period of two years from the date it becomes due, i.e. the date on which his immediate junior in the seniority list is promoted. Further, the amount of Rs.35,240/ -, which has been claimed fraudulently by the petitioner, has been ordered to be recovered with interest from his salary and therefore, it can not be said that there are two punishments. Most lenient view has been taken by the counsel for the respondents and that similar type of gross irregularity has been committed by the very same petitioner earlier also, as stated in the chargesheet i.e. In Paragraph No. 2 of the Statement of Imputation of misconduct against the petitioner. Thus, it appears that repeatedly the petitioner is committing similar type of misconduct. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been considered and has been rejected vide order at annexure 5 to the memo of the petition and therefore, this court may not interfere with the action taken by the respondents by way of disciplinary action. Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no ground to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (I) The present petitioner has been working on the post of Medical Superintendent at the relevant time, i.e. in the year 1998 (II) The charges against the petitioner are to the effect that without traveling the petitioner has claimed L.T.C allowance for the year 1998. (III) It appears that chargesheet was issued to the petitioner, which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of the petition, in which also there is reference of similar type of misconduct on earlier occasions. (IV) Charges levelled against the petitioner is that without taking a journey to Kanyakumarika with his wife and children, petitioner has claimed L.T.C. allowance. It has also been accepted by the petitioner that he has furnished fake ticket numbers for getting L.T.C. In view of this admission of guilt, the punishment have been imposed by the respondent under Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of C.I.L. and a Penalty had been imposed of withholding next promotion of the delinquent, i.e. of the petitioner for a period of two years from the date it comes due, i.e. the date on which his immediate junior in the seniority list is promoted and the amount, drawn by the petitioner fraudulently, have been ordered to be recovered with interest. (V) The only question left out to this Court is as to whether the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate or shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. (VI) Having considered the nature of misconduct, punishment imposed by the respondents can not be labelled as grossly or shockingly disproportionate. The petitioner is a Medical Superintendent and inspite of being a responsible officer, he has fraudulently given fake ticket numbers for journey to Kanyakumari with his wife and children for drawing Leave Travel Concession allowance. Moreover, these facts have been admitted by the petitioner and therefore, a lenient view has been taken by the respondents by imposing a minor penalty of withholding promotion of the petitioner for two years from the date it becomes due, i.e. the date on which his immediate junior in the seniority list is promoted. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that that these punishment is grossly or shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and further, in no circumstances it can be said that double punishment has been imposed only because money fraudulently taken by the petitioner was ordered to be returned with interest. The amount illegally taken by the petitioner ought to be returned/repaid with interest and it can not be said to be a punishment. Therefore, only one punishment has been imposed, i.e. withholding of promotion for a period of two years from the date it becomes due, i.e. the date on which his immediate junior is promoted. It further appears from the charges levelled against the petitioner that previously, twice there was similar type of misconduct on the part of the petitioner and the Public Sector Undertaking ought to have taken a strict view of the matter. The petitioner, being a highly literate person on the medical side has committed this misconduct with a good degrees of Mens ria and a lenient view has been taken by the respondent.
(3.) I , therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the order passed by the appellate authority, which are at annexure 3 and annexure 5 respectively to the memo of the petition. No error has been committed by the respondents in awarding punishment to the petitioner in order at Annexure 3 and order of confirmation at annexure 5 to the memo of the petition.;