IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.450 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.5.2010 Ashwani Kumar. -----Appellant Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Naveen Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This order will dispose of L.P.A. Nos.450 and 451 of 2010, as both relate to the same matter. 2. The appellant was employed as Summary Ahlmad in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. On receiving complaints about irregularities committed by the appellant, which amounted to misconduct, departmental inquiry was held on nine charges. Substance of the allegations against the appellant was that on receiving police challans relating to traffic violations, the appellant did not make requisite entries in the records and disposed of the challans at his own level for extraneous considerations. Apart from substance of this charge covered by LPA No.450 of 2010 charge Nos.1 to 6 and 9, charge Nos.7 and 8 alleged extortion of money, embezzlement of public funds and acquiring assets from the money so earned. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant as well as other evidence, reached the conclusion that charge Nos.1 to 6 and 9 were duly proved while charge Nos.7 and 8 were not proved. The said inquiry report was duly furnished to the appellant and after considering his view point, order of dismissal was passed by the appointing authority i.e. District and Sessions Judge, against which, departmental appeal was dismissed by a Judge of this Court who recorded that in view of seriousness of charges, different view was not called for. Thereafter, the appellant filed writ petition, mainly on the ground that the order, dismissing the appeal was not a speaking order, as required under the law. Learned Single Judge held that the order of dismissal of appeal being an order of affirmance, was not required to be a speaking order. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Question of requirement of passing of speaking order by the appellate authority is academic in the facts and circumstances of the case. The inquiry report shows sufficient material indicating the misconduct of the appellant of receiving traffic challans and not making entries, which fact was admitted in confessional statement of the appellant itself. The Inquiry Officer 2 LPA No.450 of 2010 held charge Nos.1 to 6 and 9 to have been proved, which are serious charges and once the said charges are proved, the order of dismissal was justified. It is not possible to hold that the findings in the Inquiry Report are not based on material facts or the same are perverse. This being the position, the appellate order could also not be interfered with. This is not a case where two views could be taken. 5. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. The appeals are dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE May 03, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3