ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, whose writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2744 of 2009, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2013, whereby the order of punishment of compulsory retirement was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant was working as a Junior Engineer and a charge-sheet was issued upon him on 28th April, 2003 (Annexure 1). 3. It further appears that there are three charges levelled against him, mainly that he has not accounted for the work done. He has lifted huge material worth few lakhs of rupees and no account has been given for the work done and where the materials have been utilized. So far as the third charge is concerned, he has not handed over the spot account in the measurement book. 4. Thus, all the three charges are leading to the fact that deliberately no account was given of the work done, nor the measurement book was given. The material was lifted from the Government, but not utilized and, hence, the charge-sheet was issued. 5. Enquiry officer was appointed and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard, Enquiry Officer gave his report on 11th February, 2004 and 12.04.2004, wherein it has been held that the charges levelled against this appellant have been proved. 6. Thereafter, second show-cause notice was given for quantum of punishment, which is dated 20th September, 2005, but, this appellant had not given any reply. 7. Even reminder, was issued by the respondent-Government on 10.12.2005, but, this appellant had again chosen not to give any reply. This is the behaviour of this appellant. 8. Even a press release was given, by the State Government for this appellant to give reply to the 2nd show-cause notice, but, no reply was given by this appellant. 9. It appears that this appellant is an adamant employee and nothing can be done by the Government for such type of employees except to impose the punishment upon him. 10. Even a press release was given, by the State Government for this appellant to give reply to the 2nd show-cause notice, but, no reply was given by this appellant. 9. It appears that this appellant is an adamant employee and nothing can be done by the Government for such type of employees except to impose the punishment upon him. 10. Disciplinary authority has passed an order on 23rd December, 2006 (Annexure 2), punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded, recovery proceeding was also initiated by the Government and it was also decided to file a First Information Report i.e. to initiate a criminal proceeding also. 11. Departmental appeal was preferred by this appellant which was dismissed by an order dated 4th February, 2007. Now, at this stage, the lethargic appellant has given explanation about the accounts after the departmental appeal was dismissed and leisurely after consuming much time, after several adjustments, in the year 2011 the explanation was given about the accounts. 12. Thereafter, the Government passed an order on 18th February, 2009 not to file First Information Report and not to initiate Certificate Case for recovery of the amount. 13. It appears that some persons are not only lethargic, but, influential also. Some employees are more influential, than their efficiency. This case is not an exception to such type of behavior. 14. Be that as it may, fact remains that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to this appellant-delinquent. There is no procedural lacuna in holding the departmental proceeding. The charges levelled against this appellant have been held as proved on the basis of the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has not argued that there is a procedural lacuna in holding the enquiry. 15. Thus, the only question to be decided by this Court is the quantum of punishment. 16. The charges levelled against this appellant have been held as proved on the basis of the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has not argued that there is a procedural lacuna in holding the enquiry. 15. Thus, the only question to be decided by this Court is the quantum of punishment. 16. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that after the order at Annexure 11, whereby the Government has taken a decision not to initiate criminal proceeding and to drop the recovery proceeding against this appellant because he has given the details of the account on 26.02.2011 and as such, there is no defalcation, there is no fraud, there is no misappropriation and, consequently, there is no financial loss caused to the State of Jharkhand and, hence, the punishment inflicted upon this appellant is a harsh punishment and, therefore, instead of compulsory retirement, any other punishment can be imposed, for which the matter can be remanded. 17. We are not in agreement with the contention mainly for the reasons that every time, financial loss is not a test to be looked into. There is something like honesty, integrity and dedication of the employee towards the employer. Every time money cannot be taken away and later on, be deposited, otherwise, all employees of the Government can take away sizable amount and after 4-5 years, that amount will be deposited. Prestige is more costlier than the financial loss to the Government. Dishonest employees have no place in the Government job. Looking to the evidence on record, it appears that this appellant is a dishonest employee. He has no regard to his own employer. Second show-cause notice was given, but, no reply was given. Thereafter, reminder was given and no reply was given. Even press release was given and no reply was given by this appellant. 18. It appears that this appellant was an adamant employee. Without adding much adjectives for this appellant, suffice it to say that there is a loss of confidence; there is a loss of faith by the Government in this employee, which is sufficient for his compulsory retirement. 19. It appears that when an F.I.R. is to be lodged, this appellant has no option, but, to give the account. As he was more influential than his intelligent, the Government now took decision not to file F.I.R.. 19. It appears that when an F.I.R. is to be lodged, this appellant has no option, but, to give the account. As he was more influential than his intelligent, the Government now took decision not to file F.I.R.. Misconduct is of the year 2003; Enquiry Officer gave his report in the year 2004; second show-cause notice was given in the year 2005; disciplinary authority passed an order in the year 2006, and; leisurely, slowly, after taking lot of time, may be, after lot of adjustment of money and his influence both, reply was given in the year 2011. The reply was given at a much belated stage and the order was passed in the year 2009, which is a decision not to file the First Information Report and not to initiate recovery proceedings. The Government has shown much leniency towards such type of lethargic delinquent employee, with which we are not concerned. Suffice it to say that the punishment inflicted upon this appellant can neither be said as shockingly disproportionate, nor it can be labelled as unreasonably excessive punishment. On the contrary, he deserves more punishment than what is given to him. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 20. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 187 in paragraphs 17 and 18 as under: - “17. The order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and its affirmation by the High Court is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Hullikatti wherein it was held that it is misplaced sympathy by the courts in awarding lesser punishments where on checking it is found that the bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. It was finally held that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside. As already noticed, this view was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Regional Manager, RSRTC case. 18. It was finally held that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside. As already noticed, this view was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Regional Manager, RSRTC case. 18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct and hence the Labour Court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 115 in paragraph 10 as under:- “10. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the respondent had confined his case only to the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer as well as the quantum of punishment. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 115 in paragraph 10 as under:- “10. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the respondent had confined his case only to the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer as well as the quantum of punishment. Therefore, since the respondent had not challenged the correctness, legality or validity of the inquiry conducted, it was not open to the Labour Court to go into the findings recorded by the enquiry officer regarding the misconduct committed by the respondent. This Court in a number of judgments has held that the punishment of removal/dismissal is the appropriate punishment for an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds; and the courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced sympathy for a workman. That, there is nothing wrong in the employer losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. That, in such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of punishment. Without burdening the judgment with all the judgments of this Court on this point, we may only refer to a recent judgment in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh wherein this Court, after taking into account the earlier decisions, held in para 18 as under: (SCC p. 193) “18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct and hence the Labour Court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Transport Corpn. v. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 131 , in paragraphs 14 and 16 as under: - “14. It is submitted that the order of the High Court has been passed without appreciating the fact that termination of service is very appropriate to the seriousness of charges levied against the respondent in view of fraud and misappropriation of public money by the respondent clearly proved by the surprise checking team as well. The Station-in-Charge and the courts below have also held the respondent to be guilty of fraud and misappropriation of public money and the charges levied on the respondent were clearly proved after proper enquiry. 16. In V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC it was held as follows : (SCC pp. 341, 42, paras 4-5) “4. … In Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti it was held that misconduct in such cases where the bus conductor either had not issued tickets to a large number of passengers or had issued tickets of lower denomination, punishment of removal is proper. It is the responsibility of the conductors to collect correct fare charges from the passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. It is the responsibility of the conductors to collect correct fare charges from the passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. A conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The factual position shows that the appellant’s conduct in collecting fare at the designated place and not collecting fare from persons who had already travelled were in violation of various regulations contained in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (in short ‘the Regulations’). In Karnataka SRTC case it was held that it is misplaced sympathy by courts in awarding lesser punishments where on checking it is found that the bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It was finally held that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside. The view was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench in Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma where it was additionally observed that the proved acts amount either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence, and bus conductors who by their actions or inactions cause financial loss to the Corporation are not fit to be retained in service. 5. The principle was reiterated in U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal.” Above being the position, the Labour Court and the High Court were not justified in holding that the punishment awarded was disproportionate. (Emphasis supplied) 23. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Singh v. LIC, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 341 , in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, as under: - “8. As far as argument relating to quantum of punishment, as modified by the High Court, which results in consequential forfeiture of pensionary benefits in view of Rule 23, quoted above, is concerned, we do not find the punishment to be harsh or disproportionate to the guilt, in view of the nature of the charge of which the appellant is found guilty in the present case. Time and again, this Court has consistently held that in such matters no sympathy should be shown by the courts. 9. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh, this Court, in para 18 of the judgment has expressed the views on this point as under: (SCC p. 193) “18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment.” 10. In Karnataka SRTC v. A.T. Mane in which unaccounted amount was only Rs 93 this Court expressed its opinion in para 12 as under: (SCC p. 259) “12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.” 11. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has made following observations in para 25 of the judgment: (SCC p. 654) “25. … In the present day scenario, corruption has been treated to have the potentiality of corroding the marrows of the economy. There are cases where the amount is small, and in certain cases, it is extremely high. The gravity of the offence in such a case, in our considered opinion, is not to be adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe. There are cases where the amount is small, and in certain cases, it is extremely high. The gravity of the offence in such a case, in our considered opinion, is not to be adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe. An attitude to abuse the official position to extend favour in lieu of benefit is a crime against the collective and an anathema to the basic tenets of democracy, for it erodes the faith of the people in the system. It creates an incurable concavity in the rule of law.” 12. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bajrang Lal, this Court, following Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari, has opined that in cases involving corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. It has been further held that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. In the said case (Rajasthan SRTC), the respondent employee was awarded punishment of removal from service. In the present case it is compulsory retirement. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that on an earlier occasion, the appellant was awarded a minor punishment for his misconduct, regarding defalcation of stamps. And now he is found guilty for the second time.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. In view of the aforesaid decisions also, we see no reason in entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25000/-, which will be deposited by the appellant before the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development & Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, towards Juvenile Justice Fund. This amount will be deposited in Bank A/c No. 3734498462-5, Jharkhand Juvenile Justice Fund, State Bank of India, Project Bhawan, Hatia, Ranchi, either by cheque or bank draft, within a period of twelve weeks from today towards Juvenile Justice Fund. The aforesaid amount shall be utilized for the welfare of the juveniles as per the duties assigned to the State in the Juvenile Justice Act. 25. Copy of this order will be sent to, (a) The Secretary, Department, of Women and Child Development & Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi; and, (b) The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyay Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi.