LPA No. 626 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 626 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.05.2010 Gurmail Singh ....Appellant. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Appellant is assailing order dated 22.1.2010 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.9.2005 whereby he was dismissed from service. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant - petitioner was working as a Conductor in the Transport Department, Punjab. On 31.12.2003, while he was on duty on Bus No.9156 being plied from Vijay Nagar to Ludhiana, he did not issue tickets to two passengers though had taken Rs.168/- (Rs.84/- each) from them. A departmental enquiry was conducted in this regard and charges were proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the enquiry report and following the prescribed procedure, the Director, State Transport, Punjab, dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 30.9.2005. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant LPA No. 626 of 2010 2 – petitioner by filing appeal, revision and review, but the same were dismissed. Ultimately, the petitioner challenged the order dated 30.9.2005 dismissing him from service by filing writ petition before learned Single Judge, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that on the basis of a departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner and the charges levelled against him having been proved, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity or illegality in the view taken by learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that punishment awarded to the appellant is more severe than the charges levelled against the appellant – petitioner. 7. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Charging fare without issuing tickets from the passengers is not only misconduct but also a fraud with public at large. The appellant is not entitled to any sympathy. 8. We are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 14.05.2010 sk.