1997 INSC 0477
                      Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh and Others

                                                           Vs

                                              Narinder Singh Nirdosh

                                          Civil Appeal No. 273 of 1988

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, D. P. Wadhwa JJ)

                                                      10.04.1997

                                                        ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
WP No. 2968 of 1987 dated 19-11-1987.

2. 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 charge-sheet was served upon him on 24-4-1985. 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
                  embezzlement 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 embezzlement 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."

3. 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 be challenged in the High 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 of two increments. Calling that
finding in question, this appeal came to be filed.

4. 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 in question is a grave one and the punishment of reversion itself being a very
very lenient one, the High Court is wholly incorrect in reducing the punishment which is not at all
warranted in law.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the respondent is not appearing, no costs.