ORDER 1. The petitioner-appellant, Uday Narayan Singh, is an employee of respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (HECL for short). He was allotted a quarter of HECL. A team of officers including Engineers and Electricians, made surprise check of his quarter No. DT/385 at Dhurwa on 18.9.1993 at 3.30 p.m. and found that the meter reading and seals were okay. However, the meter was found hanging with the connection wire and theft of power by extra connection was taken from the incoming line by passing the energy meter. For the aforesaid misconduct, found on raid, the appellant was charge- sheeted by letter No. HMB/010/93-1556, dated 7.10.1993. 2. The appellant took part in day to day departmental proceeding and submitted his written statement on 27.10.1993. Thereafter taking into consideration the evidences on record the enquiry officer held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid charges. 3. A copy of the finding of the enquiry authority was supplied to the appellant vide letter Non HMB/010/96-345, dated 7.3.1996 for affording an opportunity to make any representation or submission. The appellant submitted his reply on 21.3.1996. The Disciplinary Authority, after carefully going through the records of the meter, papers and documents including the appellants reply dated 21.3.1996, agreed with the finding of the enquiry authority that the appellant is guilty of the charges framed against him which is serious in nature and for which he deserves serious punishment. 4. However, it appears that a lenient view was taken by the Disciplinary Authority, who by the impugned order No. HMB/ 010/96/1015, dated 9.8.1996 withheld only three increments with immediate and cumulative effect. 5. The Appellate Authority upheld the order which is also upheld by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.1997 in CWJC No. 4206/1996(R). 6. The counsel for the appellant relied on a circular communicated by Memo No. HMB/RG/RI/93-1520, dated 19.4.1993. By the aforesaid circular, the respondent, HECL, laid down guideline for recovery of electrical charges at flat rate of electrical units in case of faulty/non-functioning of energy meter in HECL quarters. It was submitted that the appellant was liable to pay the charges at flat rate of electrical units in case of faulty/non-functioning of energy meters including the meters which are damaged/burnt/tampered. In such a case, the appellant should not be held guilty. It was submitted that the appellant was liable to pay the charges at flat rate of electrical units in case of faulty/non-functioning of energy meters including the meters which are damaged/burnt/tampered. In such a case, the appellant should not be held guilty. Such submission can not be accepted as it is not the question as to what amount should be recovered/charged from the appellant for consumption of energy. The issue before the Authority was as to whether the charge of power theft levelled against the appellant was properly proved or not. 7. On the basis of the evidence on record, as the enquiry officer held the -appellant guilty of charges of power theft, we find no reason to interfere with the order of punishment or the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. In fact we find that a lenient view was taken by the respondents by inflicting the punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect though it was a case of imposing harsh punishment. 9. There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.