IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.13413 of 2006 Date of decision: 4.8.2008 Beant Singh and others -----Petitioners Vs. Chairman Punjab National Bank and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. GS Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Katia, Advocate for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. This petition seeks quashing of order of dismissal from service dated 28.11.2000 which was affirmed in appeal. The petition also seeks quashing of rejection of representation for reinstatement after discharge of petitioner No.1 from the criminal case vide order dated 15.5.2006, Annexure P.6. Case of the petitioner is that he joined service in December 1978. A charge sheet was given to him alleging that he left two drafts leaves blank and he in connivance with other employees stole five drafts leaves which were used for fraudulent Civil Writ Petition No.13413 of 2006 payment at different branches. Departmental enquiry was conducted and FIR was lodged. Thereafter, order of dismissal from service was passed on 28.11.2000. Appeal against the said order was dismissed on 11.4.2001. He was discharged from the criminal case on 18.7.2005 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. Thereafter, he made a representation for reinstatement which was not decided. He filed CWP No.4013 of 2006 wherein vide order dated 16.3.2006, a direction to decide the representation was issued. Thereafter the representation was dismissed vide order Annexure P.6. In the reply filed, stand on behalf of the respondent- Bank is that the petitioner has filed a suit challenging the order of dismissal which was still pending when the writ petition was filed. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.10.2006. Discharge in criminal case did not entitle the petitioner to reinstatement when in independent departmental enquiry, charge against the petitioner was established. His acquittal in the criminal case was on account of main accused having died and the other accused having been declared Proclaimed Offenders. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of order dated 28.11.200, Anenxure P.1 shows that a charge sheet was given to the petitioner and after considering his reply, an Enquiry officer was appointed. The 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13413 of 2006 petitioner made a confession before the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which charge was held to be proved. The petitioner was given further opportunity in the light of enquiry report. After considering his reply, order of dismissal was passed. The said order was affirmed on appeal. Regular enquiry having been held and charge against the petitioner having been held to be established, the same is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground that the petitioner was discharged in criminal proceedings. Once regular departmental enquiry has been held, order of disciplinary authority cannot be interfered with unless it could be shown that finding of misconduct was not based on any evidence or that the employee was denied reasonable opportunity of representing himself. For the above reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of dismissal or the order rejecting representation of petitioner No.1 for reinstatement. The petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 4, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3