IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3150 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 25, 2011. Ramesh Kumar .....Petitioner versus Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, 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 was a Summary Clerk in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar when he was transferred as a Copyist in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala vide order dated 29.8.2001. Soon thereafter, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.11.2001 followed by a charge-sheet dated 26.2.2002 (Annexure P-1) containing the allegations out of which the following charges were finally proved in a departmental enquiry:- “1. That while posted as Summary Clerk in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for the period 10.6.1999 to 29.8.2001, as many as 1133 traffic challans were found missing from the total receipt during that period; C.W.P.No .3150 of 2011 2 2. As many as 532 challans received by you during the period of your posting as Summary Clerk in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, were found available in the office but those were not found to have been entered by him in the institution register; 3. That you had tampered with the judicial record (i.e. Disposal/Fine register) by over-writing new registration numbers in the institution register in place of the originally recorded registration numbers of as many as 202 motor vehicles after the challans in respect of the originally recorded vehicles came to be disposed of by the Court. You indulged in that over-writing interpolation for extraneous consideration; 4. That you acquired a fire arm in your own name without either obtaining the permission of the competent authority or intimating the purchase aforesaid to the competent authority; 5. That you acquired assets disproportionate to your known sources of income....” The learned District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 8.8.2002 (Annexure P-4) and the petitioner's departmental appeal has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge by passing a self-speaking order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-7). Adding to his discredit, the petitioner has been meanwhile convicted in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act though his appeal is still pending consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. C.W.P.No .3150 of 2011 3 In my considered view, several allegations proved against the petitioner directly impinge upon his dishonesty and integrity justifying the imposition of severest punishment of dismissal from service. The equiry has been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In these circumstances, no case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. February 25, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE