LPA No. 1062 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1062 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 22.12.2010 EHC Dalbir Singh No. 648 -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 11.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant had claimed that in the departmental proceeding, there was no evidence to sustain the charges and accordingly, the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was not warranted. He also claimed that once the criminal proceedings have resulted in his acquittal then the findings recorded in departmental enquiry were liable to be reviewed and an order exonerating him from the charges should have been passed. The aforesaid argument was based on the presumption that the charges in disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings were the LPA No. 1062 of 2010 (O&M) -2- same and the witnesses also were the same. 2. The learned Single Judge found that the departmental proceedings were initiated for carelessness and indiscipline committed by the appellant as a public servant, inasmuch as he alongwith his companion got petrol worth of ` 500/- filled in the car and then they fled away without making payment. The car was followed and he was caught by the complainant party. The learned Single Judge has also found that there was ample evidence to sustain the charges and it could not have been asserted that it was a case of no evidence. 3. We have heard Mr. S.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant who has repeated the same argument which he had submitted before the learned Single Judge. However, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that there is ample evidence on record to sustain the charges and that the proceedings in criminal case were different than the proceedings initiated for holding department enquiry. Therefore, we find that the appeal does not warrant admission and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE December 22, 2010 Atul