IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13263 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 29, 2010. Trilok Chand Pruthi .....Petitioner versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.D.R.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is serving as a Development Officer with the respondent-Insurance Company. He was charge-sheeted with the allegation that he issued an Insurance Cover Note purported to be dated 7.8.1992 in respect of Truck No.HRJ-4051 after the said vehicle had met with an accident on 8.8.1992. The petitioner was duly associated in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner was fully proved. Based upon that finding and while holding that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty and that he acted in a dishonest manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company, the Competent Authority imposed punishment of reduction in the basic pay of the petitioner by four steps permanently besides C.W.P.No .13263 of 2010 2 recovery of 50% of the loss of Rs.45488/- caused by the petitioner to the Insurance Company. The petitioner went in appeal and his appeal has also been turned down by the Appellate Authority by passing a self-speaking order dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a memorial which too did not find favour with the authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, who has pointed out the lack of evidence to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that some of the witnesses who are employees of the Company have not supported the allegations. A perusal of the record would reveal that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have taken note of the fact that some of the witnesses, including one Virinder Singh have resiled from their earlier version having been won over or pressurized by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, on the other hand, has relied upon the version of Rajnish Madan and Dr.S.K.Munjal who have proved that the disputed Cover Note was issued by the petitioner. There being a categorical finding of fact after discussing the entire evidence at threadbare, no case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. July 29, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE