HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15736 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.08.2011 **** Sohan Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Rajiv Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. BS Chahal, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was a conductor in the Punjab Roadways. He was charge-sheeted under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 for embezzlement of Rs.24/-. (2). An enquiry was held. The charges were proved and after giving proper show cause notice, the competent authority decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. The order to this effect was passed. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner also failed. (3). He has approached this Court inter alia on the ground of discrimination alleging that in case of another Conductor who had embezzled Rs.106/-, the punishment of stoppage of some increments only was imposed upon him. CWP No.15736 of 2010.doc - 2 – (4). The respondents, in their reply/affidavit have very effectively explained as to why there could not be any other adequate punishment except to dismiss the petitioner from service. In para-1 of the reply/affidavit on merits, the respondents have stated as follows:- “That the petitioner was working in the transport department is admitted but the remaining facts are wrong and denied. It is further mentioned that the petitioner had qualifying service of about five years to his credit during the entire service career as number of times, he remained out of service due to suspension or otherwise and he remained suspended for 14 different occasions. The total suspension period and without pay leave (extra ordinary leave) comes to 8 years, 7 months and 7 days and 22 punishment orders were passed against him due to dereliction of duties i.e. fraud, misbehaviour, receiving fare from passengers but not issuing tickets and negligence whereby his 41 increments i.e. 36 with cumulative effect (permanently) and 5 without cumulative effect (temporarily) were stopped by way of different punishment orders. The punishment orders were passed due to the fraud, misbehaviour, receiving fare from passengers but not issuing tickets and negligence. The detail of the punishment orders is Annexure R1 and the detail of extraordinary leave is Annexure R2.” (5). The list (Annexure R1) reveals that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct on at least 20 occasions and various CWP No.15736 of 2010.doc - 3 – punishment orders of stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect have also been passed against him right from 1981 to 2002. (6). In these circumstances and when the petitioner has been found to be an incorrigible employee, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (7). Dismissed. 05.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge