IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23012 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 15, 2011. Ram Krishan .....Petitioner versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner while working as a Junior Meter Reader in the respondent-Corporation, was charge-sheeted with the allegations that he gave undue advantage to a consumer, namely, Gurmeet Kaur w/o Joginder Singh by deliberately noting down the less meter reading of the said consumer in the Register and the Meter Inspector caught him in this regard on a surprise checking. A regular departmental enquiry was held by the Senior Executive Engineer which concluded as follows:- “.... After going through the allegations, which were levelled in the List of Allegations, the allegation was proved against the employee, which be read as per Section V to IX of Regulation 5 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules R/W Regulation 8, vide which the Deputy Superintending Engineer, Kartarpur Division given its reply in Anthodium Form and as per the same, it is C.W.P.No .23012 of 2010 2 necessary to initiate proceedings as per law of the Board because the said employee has not taken correct readings, as mentioned in the List of Allegations, so this employee is accused of the same but it might be possible that the meter might jumped, the same be taken into consideration...” The Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 31.5.2007 (Annexure P-3) imposed a major penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner after a show cause notice. The petitioner filed service appeal which was rejected on merits but taking a lenient view, the Appellate Authority reduced the punishment to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect only. The petitioner still aggrieved has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. It is well settled law that a Writ Court would be extremely reluctant to travel into the findings of fact returned by the Authorities on appreciation of the material on record unless it is proved that such findings are totally perverse and run contrary to the material on record. No such case is made out by the petitioner. The contention that the meter of the consumer was defective and it ought to have been sent to the laboratory, was a defence plea available to the petitioner during the course of enquiry and cannot be first time raised before this Court. C.W.P.No .23012 of 2010 3 Similarly, no case to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner is made out. The petitioner has been held guilty of showing lesser consumption of electricity by the consumer thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation for which imposition of punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect cannot be termed as disproportionate. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. March 15, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE