CWP No.15189 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15189 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2011 The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Law Officer. ... Petitioner Versus Additional Registrar (Admn.), Cooperative Socieities, Punjab, Chandigarh and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed in appeal by the Additional Registrar filed at the instance of second respondent and during the time when he was working as Field Assistant, was charged with misappropriation of stocks. The petitioner denied the same but later he himself had deposited `37,749.00 being the value of 604 bags. Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, a revision had been filed before the Registrar, who modified the punishment and directed that he would be accountable for the shortage and CWP No.15189 of 1991 (O&M) [2] misappropriation of 604 bags and while modifying the punishment, he converted the penalty order imposed on him to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale by three steps for a period of three years. The order also stated that during the period of such reduction, he would not earn any increment and the penalty would be without cumulative effect. The revisional authority took notice to the fact that the petitioner had already made good the loss by depositing the value of the stocks lost and he had directed that he would make good loss to the extent of 20% and the amount already deposited by him would be taken into account. Both as regards, the finding of the revisional authority relating to the proof of the charge and the manner of the punishment, the authority had given extensive reasons and I do not find that there any scope for interference. 2. The order is confirmed and the writ petition filed by the Management is dismissed. AUGUST 29, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE