LPA No. 1612 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1612 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 06, 2011 Hari Kishan …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment 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 order dated 25.04.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that there was no viable reasons to interfere in the punishment inflicted on the appellant-petitioner because the appellate authority had reduced the punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 2. It is appropriate to mention that a departmental enquiry was held against the appellant-petitioner which resulted in passing of order dated 22.10.2008 (P-6), removing him from service. The allegation against the appellant-petitioner was that he delivered the possession of the plot without demarcation resulting shortage of area in respect of other allotted. On appeal, the appellant-petitioner LPA No. 1612 of 2011 (O&M) -2- succeeded partially as his punishment was substantially reduced to stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The findings recorded by the appellate authority in unmistakable term hold the appellant-petitioner responsible as he was negligent in not being extra vigilant. In para 7 of order dated 15.10.2010 (P-8), it has been recorded that in the absence of clear directions on the issue there was negligence on the part of the appellant-petitioner who did not become extra vigilant. Therefore, it cannot be concluded by the Writ Court that there was no findings of guilt and that it is a case of no evidence. The Court cannot act as Court of appeal to overturn the findings of enquiry officer, disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that no interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge is called for. The appeal does not merit admission. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 5. Keeping in view the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 74 days in filing of the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 06, 2011 Atul