http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARINDER SINGH NIRDOSH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2968/87 dated 19.11.1987.      The few  facts necessary  for disposal  of the case are that while  the respondent  was working  as Inspector in the Punjab Civil  Supplies Corporation,  he was made incharge of the Wheat  procured by  the Government and weighment in that behalf. In  1980 while  he was  working in  Patiala, he  was found to have filled up the wheat bags with husk and thereby misappropriated huge  stock of  the wheat.  Taking a lenient view, the  authorities  stopped  two  increments  after  the enquiry and he was transferred to Gugha in Patiala District. Thereat also he repeated the misconduct. As a consequence, a chargesheet was  served upon  him on  April  24,  1985.  The charges levied against him read as under:           "a) For  connivance with  Shri      Gurmail Singh in replacement of new      wheat of  1984-85 with 1557 bags of      rejected wheat  in godowns  and for      misappropriation  and  embazzlement      of wheat stock.           b) For  misappropriation of 17      bales and  242 ‘A’  Class  bags  in      connivance with  Shri Gurmail Singh      Inspector.           c)  For  misappropriation  and      embazzlement of  1292-3200 quintals      wheat which  was given  in short by      Shri Gurmail  Singh  while  handing      over  charge,  in  connivance  with      Gurmail Singh.           Separate   charge-sheet    was      given to Gurmail Singh."      After conducting the enquiry, instead of dismissing him from service,  the authorities reduced his rank of Inspector to that  of Sub-Inspector which came to of challenged in the High Court. Court. In the impugned order, the High Court has held that  the punishment  was disproportionate,  though the misconduct was  proved. Instead, he should be given stoppage

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

of two  increments. Calling  that finding  in question, this appeal came to be  filed.      In  view   of  the  settled  legal  position  that  the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the magnitude of the misconduct,  is   empowered   to   impose   the   punishment appropriate to  the situation, the High Court is unjustified in interfering  with the  punishment of  reversion, as  most lenient view  was taken by the Government. The nature of the punishment depends  upon the  magnitude of  the  misconduct. Since the  misconduct is  question is  a grave  one and  the punishment of reversion itself being a very very too lenient one, the  High Court  is wholly  incorrect in  reduring  the punishment which is not at all warranted in law.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the respondent is not appearing, appearing, no costs.