LPA No. 1844 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1844 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 28.02.2011 Sandeep Kaur ---Appellant Versus President State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission etc. ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, 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. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 11.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the order dated 08.12.2009 (P- 10), removing the appellate from service of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jalandhar has been passed as per the provisions of law. Consequential appellate order dated 05.08.2010 (P-14) has also been upheld. 2. It is a fact that in a regular departmental enquiry, the appellant has been found guilty of misconduct of negligence because she did not deliver 77 copies of the judgment relating to the period of December 2008, January 2009 and February 2009. In her LPA No. 1844 of 2010 (O&M) -2- explanation, she has accepted the aforesaid lapse. Her past conduct has also been taken into account which shows that her Annual Confidential Reports (for brevity 'ACRs') have been average or below average for the period 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. She has been found guilty of not dispatching the summon in cases and had been giving wrong reports on the notices. Accordingly, penalty of removal has been imposed. 3. The learned Single Judge did not find any ground to interfere in the order of removal. It is appropriate to mention that the charge-sheet dated 05.05.2009 (P-1) was issued, to which the appellant entered reply on 14.05.2009 (P-2). A copy of the enquiry report dated 10.07.2009 was served on her (P-3) and her reply was obtained. It is pertinent to mention that the charge memo also included the charges based on the past record which showed average or below average reports. The Enquiry Officer found the charges as proved and after following the due procedure, she has been removed from service. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and found that no procedural lapse causing prejudice to the right to the appellant has been pointed out to us which may warrant admission of the appeal. The misconduct of the appellant has been set out in the charge-sheet alongwith her past record. It is well settled that the enquiry proceedings can also be initiated in respect of the past ACRs. For the aforesaid view, we seek support from the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court LPA No. 1844 of 2010 (O&M) -3- rendered in the case of State of Punjab v. Dewan Chunni Lal (1970) 1 SCC 479. 5. We further find that the quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with in the absence of any lapse in the holding of enquiry proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE February 28, 2011 Atul