IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11997 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 17.08.2009 Raj Kumar .... PETITIONER Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who was working as LDC in the office of SDO (Operation), Sub Division, DHBVNL, Manesar, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure P-8), whereby his services were terminated, after holding the regular enquiry; as well as the order dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure P-12), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. In this case, when the petitioner was working in the aforesaid office of the respondents, two charge sheets were issued to him. In the first charge sheet dated 18.1.2002, he was charged for mis-using his position and defrauding the respondent Nigam by embezzling an amount of Rs. 68,801/-. In the second charge sheet dated 7.2.2002, he was charged for embezzling CWP No. 11997 of 2009 -2- of Rs. 8,992/- in connivance with Shri Thanwar Singh, LDC/C, by giving a bogus certificate in the CCR Book, regarding totaling of revenue cash. The petitioner submitted replies to both the charge sheets, which were found unsatisfactory and the disciplinary authority appointed the XEN (Operation) Division, Sohna, as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.8.2005, in which charges against the petitioner were held to have been proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with the enquiry report, proposing his termination from services. Subsequently, the petitioner again requested for a copy of the enquiry report. The same was again supplied to him, but he did not file any reply to the show cause notice. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority, after taking into consideration the enquiry report and looking into the gravity of the mis-conduct and the embezzlement of Rs. 68,801/- and Rs. 8,992/-, terminated the services of the petitioner and ordered for recovery of the said amounts from him. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by passing a speaking order. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Enquiry Officer, without recording the statement of any witness, wrongly recorded the finding against the petitioner. Secondly, he submitted that the disciplinary authority has acted discriminately, while awarding lighter punishment to Shri Thanwar Singh, LDC/C, who was also charge sheeted CWP No. 11997 of 2009 -3- with the petitioner. Thirdly, counsel contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is non-speaking. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submissions. The reading of the enquiry report, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5, clearly reveals that the Enquiry Officer, after tallying the cash to CCR Book with the cash received, has categorically come to the conclusion that the petitioner has embezzled the amount of the consumers, which he had received, but not entered in the Ledger Book. The Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that such embezzlement can only be detected by tallying the accounts. The petitioner being posted in the Manesar Sub Division from December, 1998 to August, 2001, accepted the amounts from the consumers after issuing the receipts, but did not account the said amount in the ledger of the respondent Nigam. From the official record, the embezzlement has been clearly established. For detecting such an embezzlement, no witness is required to be examined. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are without any base or are perverse. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was treated discriminately cannot be accepted. The amount alleged to have been embezzled by Shri Thanwar Singh in connivance with the petitioner was only to the extent of Rs. 8,992/-. The allegations against the petitioner are more serious. Therefore, I do not find any discrimination in the punishment to the petitioner. Regarding the third submission, the CWP No. 11997 of 2009 -4- order passed by the Appellate Authority is detailed and speaking order. Thus, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Dismissed. August 17, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE