LPA No.163 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 163 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 4 .4.2011 Ved Pal ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate for Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 10.9.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that there was no illegality in the order passed by the respondents inflicting the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect after holding that enquiry was in accordance with the procedure as laid down in Haryana civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for brevity 'the 1987 Rules') . 2. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant has been working on the post of Patwari. He was charged of entering a mutation in a wrongful manner on the basis of the decree passed by the Court on 24.4.1997 intentionally to cause undue favour to one of the parties. The charge sheet was issued to him on 14.2.2006 to which he submitted his reply. Thereafter enquiry was held and on 18.1.2007 the Enquiry Officer held him guilty of the charge. Accordingly the punishment of stoppage of two LPA No.163 of 2011 2 increments with cumulative effect was inflicted on 13.3.2009 by the appointing authority. However, he filed an appeal and the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon reduced the punishment to stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. 3. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and find that there is no lapse committed by the enquiry officer in recording the finding against the appellant. Once the enquiry has been held in accordance with the procedure established by 1987 Rules and the appellate authority has reduced the punishment to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect then no scope is left for further interference. The learned Single Judge has taken the correct view and the instant appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly the appeal does not deserve admission. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 4.4.2011 Judge okg