- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6828 of 2007 whereby the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding therein that the order of stopping three grade increments with cumulative effect did not require interference as the Department itself has taken a lenient view of the matter and substituted the compulsory retirement with the order of stoppage of three grade increment with cumulative effect as the charges levelled against the petitioner -appellant was held to have been proved.
(2.) TO explain the controversy, it may be relevant to state that a departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner -appellant herein for certain charges for which department proceeding had been initiated and in course of the department proceeding the delinquent -appellant admitted the charges levelled against him and consequently the charges were held to have been proved and an order of compulsory retirement was passed against him. The delinquent -appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the competent authority and finally at the revisional stage, the authority interfered on the question of sentence imposed on the delinquent -appellant and the order of compulsory retirement was substituted by order of stoppage of three annual grade increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner -appellant in spite of having succeeded before the revisional -authority, who took a lenient view of the matter and ordered for his reinstatement setting aside the order of compulsory retirement, the appellant felt aggrieved of the order of punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increment with cumulative effect and hence the same was assailed before the learned single Judge by filing the writ petition but the writ petition was dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner -appellant has assailed the order of punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment and while assailing the same, the counsel for the appellant has expected this Court as also the learned single Judge to re -appreciate the evidence which was recorded against him by the disciplinary authority and has rightly been refused to be interfered with by the learned single Judge which is endorsed by us also while considering the appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. The order of compulsory retirement having been substituted by order of imposition of stoppage of three annual grade increment with cumulative effect, cannot be treated as a fresh enquiry report so as to infer that the charges against the petitioner -appellant was not proved. In fact, the charge against the petitioner appellant was held to have been proved and only on the question of sentence the order of punishment was modified to the extent recorded hereinbefore. The respondents/Authorities have already taken a lenient view of the matter and substituted the order of compulsory retirement with a lighter punishment of stoppage of' three annual grade increments.
(3.) WE find no infirmity in this order as also in the order of the learned single Judge upholding the order of punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments, for once the charge was held to have been proved, the appellant could not have been allowed to go unpunished, yet a lighter punishment has been imposed on him by the disciplinary authority himself.;