Letters Patent Appeal No.299 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.299 of 2011 Date of decision: 6.7.2011 Ranbir Singh Phogat ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the award of the labour Court upholding the punishment awarded to the appellant of reduction of pay by one stage. 2. The appellant is employed with the respondent-bank. He was charged for misappropriation of bank funds. After due enquiry, charge was held to be established and disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction of pay of one stage and recovery of misappropriated amount. The appellant raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court held that fair enquiry having been held and charge having been established, punishment imposed was not liable to be interfered with. As regards the contention that punishment imposed to another employee Sh. H.K.Yadav was lessor, it was held that stoppage of one increment for the charge of misappropriation could not be said to be disproportionate. The appellant filed writ petition. Learned Single Judge held that no interference was called for with the punishment. Letters Patent Appeal No.299 of 2011 -2- 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that different punishments could not be imposed for the same charge on the different employees. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers' Union Ltd. Vs. Shailesh Kumar Harshadbhai Shah (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 548 State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Rajpal Singh (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 783. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. Admittedly charge of misappropriation of funds has been established against the appellant. Once such a serious charge is established, punishment of reduction of pay by one stage cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be held as disproportionate to the charge. The judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court are on different set of facts. 6. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 06, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge