C.W.P. No. 18380 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18380 of 2009 Date of decision: 01.12.2009 Balbir Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order passed by the competent authority vide which the petitioner has been removed from service and also the order of the appellate authority, rejecting her appeal. The petitioner was appointed as Gram Sevika on 30.4.1994. On account of mis-conduct, she was issued chargesheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The FIR was also got registered against the petitioner under Section 409 IPC. The petitioner submitted reply to the chargesheet denying the charges. We are not concerned with the criminal case, as the petitioner stands acquitted by the criminal Court. Inquiry officer was appointed to conduct inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner, which were of serious nature i.e. of embezzlement. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of C.W.P. No. 18380 of 2009 -2- charges. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with copy of inquiry report. She was also provided personal hearing before imposing the punishment of removal from service. During personal hearing, she admitted her lapse and also admitted that the money was deposited by her only after the FIR was registered. Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the order of removal, as well as the order passed by the appellate authority primarily on the ground that the inquiry against the petitioner was held in violation of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner was not allowed to inspect the record, so as to effectively defend herself in the inquiry. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, the appellate authority in the order has recorded a positive finding, that the petitioner was given an opportunity to inspect the record while issuing chargesheet itself, however, the petitioner chose not to avail the opportunity. It cannot, therefore, be said that the opportunity was denied to the petitioner, to hold that there was violation of principles of natural justice or that of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. This plea also cannot be accepted, as the appellate authority C.W.P. No. 18380 of 2009 -3- has held that the petitioner in spite of being present, chose not to cross- examine the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is not a case where right was denied to the petitioner, she having chosen not to cross-examine the witness, cannot take advantage of her own lapse to contend that there has been violation of the Rules in conduct of inquiry. As already observed above, even inquiry report was sent to her along with show cause notice. Important aspect in the case is that, during personal hearing, the petitioner had admitted her mistake of having kept the amount of the department with her, which was deposited by her only after registration of FIR. In view what has been stated above, it cannot be said that there was any violation of rules and regulations or principles of natural justice. The charge of embezzlement being serious charge, the punishment awarded also cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. No ground for interference is made out. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge December 01, 2009 R.S.