AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The facts are not in dispute. It is accepted by the petitioner, even before us, that he embezzled a sum of Rs. 47000/- approximately, though it is
put, it was a temporary embezzlement, as the money was re-deposited after one year of the alleged embezzlement.
Admittedly, no amount was deposited during the enquiry or later and it was only when a show cause notice proposing dismissal from service of
the petitioner was issued that the amount was deposited in order to take it as a mitigating circumstance.
The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that common cadre rules provide for dismissal from service as one of the
punishments. The punishing authority should have stated the reason why such an extreme punishment was imposed. Learned counsel further
submits that punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charge attributed to the petitioner. A lenient view should be taken as he had rendered
about 10 years service. In support of his contention he relies on State of Punjab, v. Amarjit Singh 1992 (1) CLJ 683.
Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner does not deserve
any leniency or sympathy. The petitioner never came forward with clean hands. He resisted his liability till he was found guilty on completion of the
enquiry. It is only when a show cause notice proposing punishment was served, embezzled amount was deposited. Embezzler cannot be permitted
to continue in service to give him a better chance to embezzle a larger amount. So far as the authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, it is a case under the Indian Penal Code, where while awarding punishment in a criminal trial, deposit of amount was taken into
consideration. We fail to comprehend how in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the precedent cited is even remotely applicable. If an
embezzler cannot be removed from service where employer has lost faith in him, we fail to comprehend under what circumstances one is liable to
be removed from service. No grounds are made out to interfere in the jurisdiction exercised for awarding the punishment as it is in no manner
disproportionate to charges and conduct of the petitioner.
No ground to interfere. Dismissed.