CWP(T) No. 2546/2008 20.4.2010 Present : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate Genera, with Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. CMP No. 113 of 2010 Application is allowed. Order dated 3.8.1994 is taken on record. CWP (T) 2546 of 2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, who was, at the relevant time, working as Kanungo. The charge, inter alia, was to the effect that amount of Rs.1858/- received on account of rent was not deposited in the Government Treasury in accordance with Rules. During the disciplinary proceedings, before the Enquiry officer, the petitioner admitted the charge by writing the following letter:- “Sir, Respectfully it is submitted that above inquiry is pending for hearing and fixed for today i.e. 3.8.1993. 1. That the accounts related to the case were reconciled with the office of the Tehsildar (Urban) Shimla and a sum of Rs.1858/- (rupees eighteen hundred and fifty eight) only was not found to have been deposited into the Treasury in the absence of the record. The amount was deposited by me to save myself from the police action and other mental torture. As it was informed that in case the amount is not deposited the F.I.R. will be lodged. Owing to the above circumstances I had to deposit the amount though it at a belated stage. I confess my guilt of depositing the amount in the above circumstances.” The disciplinary proceedings were concluded in view of admission made by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority by taking a lenient view imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority in terms of order dated 5.12.1994 (Annexure A- 20). Prior to that even Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla, had not intervened as is clear from his order dated 3.8.1994. The admission made by the petitioner is voluntary, unambiguous and is not conditional as now is sought to be urged at the Bar. The petitioner, a government servant had pocketed public money for over a period of 12 years and it was only during the course of disciplinary proceedings that he deposited the amount and the disciplinary authorities took a lenient view. In fact prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the stand taken by the petitioner was that of denial. Hence no case for interference is made out. The petitioner should be content with the fact that the authorities did not take any criminal action against him. I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 20th April, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge