IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1132 of 2010 Date of Decision : 22.01.2010. Gurmail Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.P.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitoner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks certiorari to quash the order dated 30.9.2005 (Annexure P-1) dismissing him from service. The petitioner was a Conductor in the Transport Department, Punjab. It is alleged that on 31.12.2003 while he was on duty on Bus No.9156 being plied from Vijay Nagar to Ludhiana, the checking staff gave a false report against him that he did not issue tickets to two passengers though had taken Rs.168/- (Rs.84/- each) from them. A departmental enquiry was conducted in this regard and charges were proved against the petitioner. Based upon the enquiry report and following the prescribed procedure, the Director, State Transport, Punjab, dismissed C.W.P.No .1132 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the petitioner from service vide order dated 30.9.2005 (Annexure P-1). The appeal, revision and review against the said order have also met with the same fate. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record. The plea of discrimination on and quantum of sentence, founded upon the orders dated 28.6.2005, 26.7.2005 & 22.3.2005 (Annexures P-6 to P-8 respectively) is wholly misconceived and misplaced for the reason that none of these orders pertain to a disciplinary action taken against a Conductor on the allegations of mis-appropriation of the Government funds. The punishment of termination of services, having regard to the nature of the allegations proved against the petitioner, cannot be said to be disproportionate or so excessive that it might prick the conscience of the Court. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. 22-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE