CWP No. 2121 of 1984. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2121 of 1984. [O&M] Date of Decision: 17th February, 2011. Surinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate Versus The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Respondent through Mr. S.K.Pippat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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 seeks quashing of the order dated 22.05.1982 [Annexure P-8] passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation whereby he was removed from service having been found guilty of defalcation of 41 quintals of wheat on pilferage as well as the order dated 20.03.1984 [Annexure P-10] passed by the Chairman of the respondent Corporation allowing the petitioner's appeal in part to the extent that he has been ordered to be taken back in service on the original post of Clerk subject to his depositing the cost of 41 quintal wheat, i.e., `5330/-. [2]. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that the inquiry was conducted by observing the principles of natural justice and no case to interfere with in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court is made out. [3]. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and records have been perused. [4]. It may be true, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the punishment of forfeiture of service of the petitioner as Warehouse Manager Grade-II was not one of the punishments CWP No. 2121 of 1984. ::-2-:: prescribed under the Rules. However, in my considered opinion, any interference on this issue would cause more harm than any benefit to the petitioner. I say so for the reason that in the event of setting aside of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the order of removal of the petitioner from service would stand revived. It needs to be mentioned here that the respondents have followed the prescribed procedure while holding the departmental inquiry in which the petitioner was held guilty of the pilferage of wheat. The principles of natural justice having been adequately followed while proving the allegations of pilferage or defalcation of the property, ordinarily the writ Court would be reluctant to interfere in the quantum of punishment. It is, thus, in the petitioner's own interest that the appellate order is not disturbed at this stage. [5] There is yet another reason to arrive at this conclusion. The petitioner's parent department was the office of Labour Commissioner, Punjab where he held lien on the post of Clerk and was repatriated against the same vide the appellate order dated 20.03.1984. The petitioner did not deposit the cost of wheat, i.e., ` 5330/- and as such he never joined as a Clerk in the respondent Corporation. The petitioner rather opted to re-join his parent department and has now retired from service on superannuation. The non-interference in the appellate order is thus not likely to cause any monetary loss to the petitioner. [6]. For the reasons afore-stated, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, in a way, as having been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. [7]. Disposed of. Dasti. February 17, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE