IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6448 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 03, 2011. Kirpa Ram .....Petitioner versus The Faridabad Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & anr. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Secretary in respondent No.1-Cooperative Bank on 18.5.1976. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 5.3.1992 alleging embezzlement of the bank funds. An Enquiry Officer was appointed after the petitioner's reply to the charge- sheet was found unsatisfactory. The petitioner admittedly appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 7.4.1999 and after holding the proceedings on that day, the matter was adjourned to the next day, i.e., 8.4.1999. The petitioner neither appeared on 8.4.1999 nor sent any request for adjournment. He never gave any explanation for his non-appearance on 8.4.1999 or thereafter. The Enquiry Officer was left with no option but to submit the enquiry report behind the petitioner's back and based upon the said enquiry CWP No.6448 of 2011 [2] report, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 9.7.1996. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also turned down by the higher authority. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in which the issue, “as to whether the services of the petitioner were terminated illegally and if so, to what relief he is entitled to, was treated as a preliminary issue. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court vide the impugned award decided the said issue against the petitioner after observing as follows:- “....Then vide Ex.M-18 Shri Hari Mohan Godara had been appointed as enquiry officer who had given notice to the claimant to look into the charges. He had given notice to the claimant to appear and had conducted enquiry proceedings. A perusal of Ex.M-19 reveals that the claimant had appeared before the enquiry officer on 7.4.1999 and had participated in the enquiry proceedings conducted on that date. He had admitted the charge that again receipt No.59495 bogus entry regarding receipt of an amount of Rs.1100/- had been made. With regard to the entries of Rs.1100/- and Rs.1300/- relating to dated 28.5.1984 and 19.6.1984 he had expressed ignorance. The signatures of claimant are shown to be appended on the presence sheet as well as on the enquiry proceedings conducted on that date. Then it is shown to be recorded in the enquiry proceedings dated 7.4.1999 that the claimant had been directed to appear at branch office Tigaon on 8.4.1999 and had put his signatures in acknowledgment thereof but thereafter his presence is not be shown to be recorded. It is clear from the above that the claimant had received the due notice about initiation of enquiry proceedings by Shri Harimohan Godara w.e.f. 7.4.1999 and had participated in the same. In his shown deposition, he did CWP No.6448 of 2011 [3] not utter even a single word to the effect that he was not aware about proceedings conducted on 8.4.1999 or thereafter. He did not utter a single word about the fact that the enquiry proceedings conducted against him were not fair and proper. Rather in his cross examination, he simply stated that Shri Hari Mohan Godara had not conducted any enquiry against him. He denied his signatures over the enquiry proceedings. He did not say that his signatures on enquiry proceedings conducted on 7.4.1999 were forged. His bare oral statement cannot be stated to be sufficient to prove that fair and proper opportunity for conducting cross examination of witness of the pre or to produce his own evidence had not been given to the claimant. He is proved to have admitted one of his charge sin the enquiry proceedings and with regard to two charges he pleaded ignorance which he did not specifically deny and in such circumstance, in my opinion, the enquiry officer Shri Hari Mohan Godara was justified in holding that the charges against the claimant had been duly proved.......” Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the Enquiry Officer ought to have adjourned the proceedings on 8.4.1999 with an intimation to the petitioner regarding the next date of hearing. It is also urged that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the nature of charges. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. I say so for the reason that once the petitioner had appeared on 7.4.1999 and the Enquiry Officer adjourned the proceedings in his presence, the next date of hearing was in his knowledge. If there were genuine cause for non- appearance of the petitioner on the date fixed, it was for him to intimate the CWP No.6448 of 2011 [4] Enquiry Officer and seek an adjournment. On the other hand, the petitioner has attempted to disown very factum of enquiry proceedings initiated against him. In these circumstances, it appears that the non-appearance of the petitioner on 8.4.1999 before the enquiry officer was deliberate. As regards the quantum of punishment, suffice it to observe that once the petitioner has been held guilty of embezzlement of public funds, no leniency in the matter of award of punishment can be shown as such an employee should invariably be dismissed from service. Dismissed. October 03, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE