LPA No. 1283 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1283 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 01.10.2010 Subhash Chand, Constable No. 747. ......Appellant Vs State of Haryana through its Secretary to the Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh and others. ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) LPA No. 1283 of 2010 Heard. The appellant/writ petitioner had instituted CWP No. 8080 of 2010 calling into question the punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect that was imposed on him after holding of a regular departmental inquiry. It may be noticed, at this stage, that the aforesaid punishment was imposed by the appellate authority in modification of the earlier punishment of withholding of five increments with permanent effect as ordered by the disciplinary authority. LPA No. 1283 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has taken us through the report of inquiry and the discussion contained therein with regard to the evidence adduced in the course of inquiry. It is submitted that at the time of theft of the truck, though the appellant was on duty, it was not possible for him to continuously keep the truck under observation as other duties had to be performed by the appellant and moreover there was dense fog at that time. Consequently, according to the learned Counsel the findings of inquiry and the punishment imposed are not correct. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Time and again it has been emphasized that the Writ Court should not ordinarily reappreciate the evidence adduced in the course of inquiry and the Writ Court should not supplant its views over and above those recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer took the view that as the appellant/writ petitioner was on guard duty during the time when the truck was stolen he ought to have been more vigilant while performing his duties and though he was not entirely at fault (as the keys were with another person) some amount of dereliction of duties is attributable to the appellant/writ petitioner. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is a possible conclusion and in no way the same can be termed as a perverse conclusion. We, therefore, cannot take the view that the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge LPA No. 1283 of 2010 (O&M) 3 to dismiss the writ petition is in any way erroneous. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.M. No. 3875 of 2010 As by order passed today we have not entertained the appeal, no order will be called for on the condonation application. C.M. No. 3877 of 2010 As by order passed today we have not entertained the appeal, no order will be called for on the stay application. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 01.10.2010 JUDGE Amodh