IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1416 of 2009 Date of decision: July 27, 2010 Ram Niwas Head Constable .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, 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 The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 2.2.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant has been visited with the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect after holding a regular departmental enquiry. There was proposal to inflict a major punishment on him. The appellant has been found to have destroyed two messages prepared by him which were pretended to have come from Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon. After the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon took the view that the aforesaid two teleprinter messages did not originate from the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon, this was taken to be grave misconduct and indiscipline by the appellant who was working as Teleprinter Operator, Police Control Room, Sonepat. Initially a show cause notice for imposition of stoppage of six future annual grade increments was given and his explanation was found to be unsatisfactory. L.P.A. No. 1416 of 2009 -2- The Disciplinary Authority imposed the aforesaid punishment. However, on revision petition filed before the Director General of Police, the punishment was considered as excessive and it was reduced to stoppage of two future increments with permanent effect. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any merit in the appeal. There is no fault found in following the procedure for holding the enquiry and the appellant was afforded full opportunity of participation in the regular enquiry. He has been found guilty of misconduct. In fact, the appellant has been treated leniently by the department. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and it does not call for any interference at the hands of the Appellate Bench. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merits, we do not wish to pass any order on the applications seeking condonation of delay. (M.M. Kumar) Judge July 27, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge