LPA No. 492 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.492 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 3 .8.2010 Iman Kumar ... Appellant Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Vivek Sethi ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 12.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. While disposing of the writ petition, it has been found that the appellant who is a Conductor working in the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation was found guilty in a regular departmental enquiry of embezzlement of Rs. 240/- while performing duty. The appellant was granted full opportunity during enquiry and his appeal was also dismissed. Accordingly his services were terminated. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, we are of the view that no interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge would be warranted. There is neither any illegality nor violation of any rules or principles of natural justice in conducting the regular departmental enquiry nor any such lapse on the part of the enquiry officer or on the part of the appellate authority has been pointed out. All that is sought LPA No. 492 of 2010(O&M) 2 to be argued is that the show cause notice after holding enquiry has even went to the extent of proposing the punishment. On our repeated asking, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to answer as to what prejudice has been caused as long as the show cause notice was accompanied by the enquiry report and even show cause notice was issued with regard to proposal of penalty. It is well settled that no interference would be permissible in the absence of any prejudice having been caused to the delinquent employee so as to conclude that a different view would have followed had the other course been taken. Therefore, we are satisfied that the orders are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 3 .8.2010 Judge okg