LPA No.1285 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1285 of 2010 Date of decision 26 .10.2010 Balwant Singh Bhandair ... Appellant Versus Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurcharan Dass ,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. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by a retired Protocol Officer of this Court. He has challenged the judgement dated 26.4.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the order dated 26.4.1996 passed by the Bench of two Judges dismissing his appeal on administrative side. It is appropriate to notice that the appellant was found guilty in a regular departmental enquiry for falsely claiming Traveling Allowance in respect of journeys to Mussoorie on 31.3.1988, 9.4.1988, 22.4.1988, 25.4.1988 , 7.5.1988 and 4.6.1988. He was awarded punishment vide order dated 20.12.1991 reducing him in rank from the post of Translator to that of Senior Clerk. He was to get minimum of the time scale of the pay of a Senior Clerk and was to rank juniormost in the cadre of Clerks. Against the aforesaid order of punishment, he filed an appeal before the Appellate LPA No.1285 of 2010 2 Authority as per the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.4.1996 reduced the punishment and awarded him the punishment of withholding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and find that there is no room to interfere in the order of the Appellate Authority as upheld by the learned Single Judge. False claim of Travelling Allowance is certainly a mis-conduct which may entail even a severe punishment. The punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect cannot be regarded as a harsh punishment or dis-proportionate to the mis-conduct committed by the appellant. There is thus no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) 13.10.2010 Judge okg