IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.186 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.5.2010 Raj Kumar -----Appellant Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge upholding dismissal of the appellant from service. 2. The appellant was employed with the respondent- Electricity Board. After about four years of service, two charge sheets were given to him alleging embezzlement and issuance of bogus certificates. Enquiry was held and after granting the appellant due opportunity, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 28.12.2005, Annexure P.8. The same was affirmed in appeal. 3. In the writ petition, contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer was not proper as statements of witnesses were not recorded and that LPA No.186 of 2010 (O&M) the disciplinary authority discriminated against the appellant in the matter of imposition of punishment. 4. Learned Single Judge rejected the above contention holding that procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer could not be held to be unfair as from the documents produced before the Enquiry Officer, finding that the charges were proved, could be held to be justified. It was further held that there was no discrimination having regard to the gravity of charge against the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation of embezzlement was also made against one Sunder Singh and the Enquiry Officer dropped charge sheet against him. Another employee Thanwar Singh was also allegedly involved in embezzlement but he was awarded lighter punishment. The Enquiry Officer took into account recovery of the amount from the consumers as a mitigating circumstance against the said employees but this circumstance was not taken in favour of the appellants. 7. We are unable to accept this submission. The charge of appellant collecting the amounts and crediting the accounts of the consumers without making entry in record and thereby embezzling the amount in question was duly established on the basis of documentary evidence. The appellant was given due opportunity of 2 LPA No.186 of 2010 (O&M) defending himself. It is not the case of the appellant that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was without evidence or was perverse. Such a serious charge having been established, there is no ground for interference. Having regard to the serious nature of the misconduct proved against the appellant, there is no ground to interfere with the punishment imposed. 8. We, thus, find no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge May 17, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3 LPA No.186 of 2010 (O&M) 4