CM-3962-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No. 4185 of 2020 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (107) CM-3962-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No. 4185 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.03.2025 Shashi Bala ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. J.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for respondents No. 6 to 9 and 14. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) CM-3962-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for recalling of the order dated 11.12.2024. Notice of the application to the counsel opposite. Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, coupled with the fact that learned counsel for the respondents has not objected to the relief as prayed in the present Kanchan 2025.04.02 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-3962-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No. 4185 of 2020 (O&M) 2 application, the same is allowed and the order dated 11.12.2024 is according recalled. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself. CWP-4185-2020 (O&M) 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) by which the punishing authority has passed an order dismissing the petitioner from her service after allegations of embezzlement alleged against her had been proved as well as order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P-5) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) has been dismissed. Further, challenge is to the enquiry report dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-5/A) by which, the petitioner has been held guilty of the allegations of misappropriation of funds alleged against her. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that both of the said orders which have been passed against the petitioner are arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner was not given due opportunity to defend herself in the departmental proceedings proceeded against her hence, the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) imposing the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner and the order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P-5) rejecting the appeal preferred against the order of dismissal are liable to be set-aside. 3. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have appeared and filed the reply, wherein, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has ₹ misappropriated funds amounting to 10,49,071/- which allegation had Kanchan 2025.04.02 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-3962-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No. 4185 of 2020 (O&M) 3 already been proved by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-5/A). Further, it has been mentioned that the petitioner herself admitted that the payment for supply of the material required for the works as per her undertaking and the payments qua the same have been made by her through cheques and, therefore, the ground being taken by the petitioner that the petitioner has not made any payment or is not involved in embezzlement of funds, is incorrect. Further, it has been mentioned by the respondents that the petitioner willfully never participated in the enquiry proceedings and, therefore, she was proceeded ex-parte and, thus, raising a ground at this point that she was not given due opportunity to defend herself, is incorrect hence, the orders which have been passed by the punishing authority after proving the allegations against petitioner, may kindly be upheld. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 5. The facts which have been stated here-in-before clearly go to show that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 07.11.2017 (Annexures P-7 and P-8) against allegations of embezzlement of funds while performing the duties assigned to her. The petitioner was given an opportunity to defend herself qua the said allegation and it is a conceded fact, which has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner even while arguing that the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte as she failed to associate herself with the enquiry proceedings, which proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the said allegation. Kanchan 2025.04.02 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-3962-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No. 4185 of 2020 (O&M) 4 6. Once, an employee does not associate himself/herself with the enquiry proceedings initiated against him/her, a question arises that whether the said employee can raise a grievance that the employee was not given due opportunity to defend himself/herself. It is worthwhile to note that an employee, who wants to defend himself/herself in the disciplinary proceedings but is not given an opportunity to do so, has full right to allege the same but, an employee who chooses not to defend herself/himself and does not participate in the departmental proceedings cannot be allowed to raise an argument that the due opportunity to defend was not given to him/her before holding the said employee guilty of the allegations alleged against him/her. 7. Once, the petitioner did not associate herself with the enquiry proceedings proceeded against her and in the enquiry proceedings which were conducted ex-parte, on the basis of the evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer, which Enquiry Officer was a retired Judicial Officer, the charges against the petitioner have already been proved on the basis of which, the impugned order of punishment dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) was passed by the punishing authority, which order of punishment has been upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P- 5). 8. Further, the allegations against the petitioner were that of embezzlement of funds. The petitioner had already given in writing accepting that the payments, which resulted into embezzlement, were made by her. Once, the payments resulting into embezzlement have been proved Kanchan 2025.04.02 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-3962-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No. 4185 of 2020 (O&M) 5 to be made by the petitioner and she has not been able to support the same with due facts as to how come, the payments were released without there being any work done, in fact amounts to embezzlement. 9. Further, the petitioner is requesting this Court to hold a de novo enquiry proceeding as she now wants to participate in the enquiry proceedings. It may be noticed that the enquiry proceedings are not to be conducted at the whims of a delinquent employee. Once, a due opportunity was given to the petitioner to associate herself in the enquiry proceeding and defend the allegations alleged against her and she failed to do so, she cannot demand another opportunity to participate in enquiry proceeding after being held guilty and after imposition of punishment upon her by the punishing authority. 10. Further, the explanation is being given to this Court by the petitioner that the petitioner is not guilty of the embezzlement of funds. It may be noticed that the Enquiry Officer has given a report on the basis of the evidence, which has come on record. Nothing has been pointed out to this Court to show that the evidence brought on record was such that it can be treated as no evidence so as to record the finding of guilt on part of petitioner. As per the settled principle of law, the Courts are not to act as an Enquiry Officer or as a Punishing Authority so as to revisit the said enquiry proceedings and to re-evaluate the evidence that has come on record so as to come to another conclusion than the one arrived at by the Enquiry Officer or the Punishing Authority. Kanchan 2025.04.02 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-3962-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No. 4185 of 2020 (O&M) 6 11. In the present case, the charges of embezzlement against the petitioner have been proved and on the basis of the same, even a civil suit has been filed for the recovery of the embezzled amount. 12. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, where the petitioner chose not to defend herself before the departmental authorities, now the petitioner at this stage cannot raise a grievance that she was not given due opportunity to defend or that the departmental proceedings should be held de novo so as to give her another chance. 13. No other argument is raised. 14. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition. 15. Dismissed. 16. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. March 21, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Kanchan 2025.04.02 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment