JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. When the matter is called out, counsel for the appellant is absent. 2. We have heard counsel appearing for the respondents at length, who has submitted that there are financial irregularities committed by this appellant (original petitioner)-delinquent for which chargesheets were given, one is dated 15th June, 1993 and another is dated 15th September, 1995. They are at Annexure-1 and 7 respectively to the memo of the writ petition. 3. Thereafter Enquiry Officer was appointed and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard and after examining several witnesses and cross-examined thereof Enquiry Officer gave his report on 26th June, 2000 (Annexure-20 to the memo of the writ petition) wherein it has been concluded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against this appellant have been proved. The total amount of financial irregularities committed by this appellant which is a misappropriation is at Rs. 9,42,000/-. 4. Second show cause notice was given on 29th June, 2000 which is at Annexure-20/1 to the memo of the writ petition and the reply was also given by this appellant. 5. Disciplinary authority has passed an order after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant on 26th August, 2000 (Annexure-22 to the memo of the writ petition) and the order of dismissal was passed looking to the nature of charges which have been held as proved. 6. Against this order of disciplinary authority dated 26th August 2008 a writ petition being CWJC No. 3394 of 2000(R) was preferred by this appellant which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2013 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 7. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there is no procedural lacuna in holding the enquiry and the witnesses were also examined during the course of departmental proceedings and which were also cross-examined by the delinquent. Enquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion on the basis of the evidences on record that the charges levelled against this appellant have been held as proved by his report dated 26th June, 2000. Even second show cause notice was given on 29th June, 2000 which was replied also by this appellant. Enquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion on the basis of the evidences on record that the charges levelled against this appellant have been held as proved by his report dated 26th June, 2000. Even second show cause notice was given on 29th June, 2000 which was replied also by this appellant. Thus, there is no procedural lacuna in holding the departmental proceedings nor it can be said that the order passed by the Enquiry Officer is based upon no evidence. Looking to the nature of misconduct as mentioned in chargesheet dated 15th June, 1993 and another chargesheet dated 15th September, 1995 and looking to the post which this appellant (original petitioner)-delinquent was holding with Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited, the quantum of punishment-dismissal, cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons: 8. Having heard counsel for the respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) This appellant is an original petitioner. He was working as an Assistant Accounts Officer at Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited. (ii) Because of the misappropriation of the sizeable amount chargesheet was issued on 15th June, 1993 and the charges levelled against this appellant (original petitioner) was misappropriation at Rs. 2,52,000/- for the financial year 1991-92. (iii) Financial irregularities are to be found out by very vigilant eye and therefore, sometime has been consumed and again one more chargesheet was issued on 15th September, 1995 for misappropriation of amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- for the assessment year 1989-90 and for misappropriation of Rs. 5,54,000/- for the financial year 1990-91. Both these charges are at Annexure-1 and Annexure-7 to the memo of the writ petition-CWJC No. 3394 of 2000(R). Thus, the total amount alleged to have been misappropriated by this appellant as on a particular date comes to Rs. 9,42,000/-. (iv) After issuance of chargesheets Enquiry Officer was appointed. Several witnesses were examined. They were cross examined also by the delinquent. (v) Enquiry Officer has given report dated 26th June, 2000 (Annexure-20 to the memo of the writ petition). Enquiry officer, on the basis of the evidences on record, both oral as well as documentary, has concluded that the charges levelled against this appellant have been proved. Several witnesses were examined. They were cross examined also by the delinquent. (v) Enquiry Officer has given report dated 26th June, 2000 (Annexure-20 to the memo of the writ petition). Enquiry officer, on the basis of the evidences on record, both oral as well as documentary, has concluded that the charges levelled against this appellant have been proved. (vi) Second show cause notice was also given to this appellant which is dated 29th June, 2000 (Annexure-20/1 to the memo of the writ petition). This second show cause notice was replied by this appellant. Thus, it appears that there is no procedural lacuna in holding the departmental proceeding. Adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to this appellant (original petitioner). (vii) After giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant (original petitioner) and looking to the nature of misconduct committed by this appellant the disciplinary authority has passed an order on 26th August, 2000 of dismissal of this appellant (Annexure-22 to the memo of the writ petition). (viii) This order was under challenge in the writ petition being CWJC No. 3394 of 2000(R). (ix) Looking to the Enquiry Officer’s report and the nature of misconduct and looking to the procedure followed by this respondent, it appears that there is no procedural lacuna in holding the enquiry by the respondents. Adequate notices were given and the opportunity of hearing was also given by the respondents. Sizeable amount has been misappropriated by this appellant. Thus, once the departmental proceedings have been held as legal and valid the only question is left out before this Court is to decide the quantum of punishment. (x) Looking to the post held by this appellant, which is Assistant Accounts Officer in Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited and the nature of misconduct committed by this appellant the punishment of dismissal cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate nor it can be labelled as unreasonable excessive punishment. The misconduct committed by this appellant is a pre-planned, well-designed action for his own benefits. Misconduct of misappropriation of the amount is the highest misconduct and there is violation of the rules of discipline. There is a breach of confidence and trust by the employer in the employee. There is loss of prestige of the respondent-Corporation and the State. Loss of confidence and trust are grave in nature. Misconduct of misappropriation of the amount is the highest misconduct and there is violation of the rules of discipline. There is a breach of confidence and trust by the employer in the employee. There is loss of prestige of the respondent-Corporation and the State. Loss of confidence and trust are grave in nature. This appellant is not befitting to hold the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. (xi) It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh, (2006) 6 SCC 187 especially in paragraph nos. 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. 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 vs. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this judgment among others. 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 vs. 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) (xii) It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 especially in paragraph no. 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. 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. vs. H. Amaresh wherein this Court, after taking into account the earlier decisions, held in para 18 as under: “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 vs. 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 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) (xiii) It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal, (2008) 12 SCC 131 especially in paragraph nos. 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 vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. it was held as follows: “4.........In Karnataka SRTC vs. 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. 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’). 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.S.R.T.C. vs. 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) (xiv) It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Singh vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 341 especially in paragraph nos. 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 vs. H. Amaresh, this Court, in para 18 of the judgment has expressed the views on this point as under: “18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs. 360.95. 9. In NEKRTC vs. H. Amaresh, this Court, in para 18 of the judgment has expressed the views on this point as under: “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 vs. A.T. Mane in which unaccounted amount was only Rs. 93 this Court expressed its opinion in para 12 as under: “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 vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court has made following observations in para 25 of the judgment: “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 vs. Bajrang Lal, this Court, following Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs. 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) The aforesaid aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding CWJC No. 3394 of 2000(R) vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2013. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding CWJC No. 3394 of 2000(R) vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2013 and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) which will be deposited by the appellant within a period of eight weeks from today in Advocates’ Association Welfare and Development Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. 10. A copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the President as well as Secretary of the Advocates Association, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. 11. 10. A copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the President as well as Secretary of the Advocates Association, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. 11. This matter will be listed on 14th February, 2019 only to verify whether the amount of cost is deposited or not?