LPA No. 758 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 758 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 01.12.2010 Madan Lal Chalia -----Appellant Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. S.K. Monga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for respondent No.1. 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 the judgment dated 13.07.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant was appointed as Clerk on 11.11.1982 by the District and Sessions Judge, Kaithal. He was promoted as Assistant on 07.06.2001. He was posted as Reader in the Court at Kaithal. On 16.05.2006, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Guhla, made a complaint against the appellant where he was working as a Reader alleging that he dealt with the case titled as Satnam Singh v. Nem Chand Suresh Kumar and he suspected that the appellant was taking cash currency from Shri R.R. Sharma, Advocate. On enquiry made by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, the appellant took Rs. 100/- from his drawer and the amount was returned to Shri R.R. Sharma, then his explanation was called and the LPA No. 758 of 2010 (O&M) -2- reply was not found satisfactory. Thereafter on 08.06.2006, a charge- sheet was issued against the appellant and a regular departmental enquiry was held. In the enquiry report, the appellant was found guilty and the learned District and Sessions Judge Kaithal, inflicted on him penalty of dismissal from Service. 3. On an appeal, the learned Administrative Judge partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge dismissing the appellant from service and further held that the appellant would be entitled to benefit of pension. However, he would not be entitled to any other benefit of service after the date of his suspension. 4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and are of the view that the learned Administrative Judge has already taken a compassionate view by converting the order of dismissal into pre-mature retirement and by issuing direction that he would be entitled to pension/ other retiral benefits. The learned Administrative Judge has also held that the appellant would not be entitled to any other benefit of service after the date of his suspension. We find no illegality in the view taken by the learned Administrative Judge by upholding the aforesaid view of the learned Administrative Judge. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE December 01, 2010 Atul