LPA No.945 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.945 of 2010 Date of decision 10 .8.2010 Major Singh ... Appellant Versus The Punjab State Seeds Corporation Ltd. and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. H.S.Sullar ,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 the judgement dated 18.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of CWP No. 3366 of 1990. The appellant- petitioner was dismissed from service as the allegations levelled against him were proved. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the embezzlement was clearly established and it is irrelevant that the petitioner made good the loss latter and in the matters of embezzlement the amount is seldom the issue and it is the act of embezzlement that is an offence. For the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Karnataka SRTC v. Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 and TNCS Corporation Ltd. v. K.Meerabai (2006)2) SCC 255. The only argument advanced by Mr. H.S. Sullar, learned counsel for the appellant is that once the learned Single Judge has recorded LPA No.945 of 2010 2 the finding that the disciplinary authority committed a mistake that charge No. 2 of the first charge sheet and charge No. 1 of the second charge sheet were proved whereas, in fact, only first charge was established, then the punishment of dismissal from service should not have been maintained. According to the learned counsel even the appellate authority committed the same mistake and direction should have been issued to the respondents to reconsider the matter and take decision afresh in accordance with law. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not deserve to be set aside because once the charge of embezzlement has been proved, this itself is adequate to sustain the punishment of dismissal from service. In such like situation the employer not only loses the faith in the employee but the employee also loses the right to remain in service. Therefore, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge did not commit any mistake in upholding the quantum of punishment on the proven charge of embezzlement. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 10 .8.2010 Judge okg