LPA No. 1883 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1883 of 2010 Date of decision 15 .3.2011 Khem Chand ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. SS Dinarpur,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. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that there was specific allegation against him for having connived with other Constable for removing the rifle which was lateron recovered from some other person. 2. It has been concluded by the Inquiry Officer that the appellant and Constable Om Parkash (281) being employees of the disciplinary force in connivance with each other had removed official rifle (Batt No. 114, 3 x 3). They have displayed extreme negligence, indiscipline and irresponsibility and accordingly declared them guilty. The aforesaid findings recorded by the inquiry officer were affirmed and accordingly he was removed from service. On appeal, the Inspector General of Police, Faridabad range, took a compassionate view and held that the appellant had left the charge on 9.12.2007 and the missing rifle was noticed lateron. The rifle was issued to ex-Constable Om Parkash who was to keep it in safe LPA No. 1883 of 2010 2 custody but the appellant was held responsible for lack of supervision and negligent and did not supervise the Constable. Holding that the punishment was excessive, the appellate authority reduced the same to that of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. The learned Single Judge has found that the order did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and find that the appellant has been treated leniently by the department and already the order of dismissal has been converted to that of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, we find that there is no legal infirmity warranting admission of the appeal. The departmental inquiry against the appellant has been held in accordance with rules and there is no procedural lapse nor any such lapse causing prejudice to the interest of the appellant has been pointed out. Once the findings are supported by evidence then this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the findings affirmed by the disciplinary authority and then by the appellate authority. The stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is in tune with the nature of mis-conduct committed by the appellant. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 15.3.2011 Judge okg