AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated-28.05.2003 (Annexure-6), passed by his Disciplinary Authority by which the petitioner was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement and stoppage of salary for the suspension period between 26.08.2002 to 25.08.2003. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, by which the petitioner''s appeal against the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority was rejected.
The petitioner was employed as a Constable in the C.I.S.F. On 23.08.2002, he was posted on Guard duty in the second shift at the Regional Stores, Godhar. On the same night, a theft had occurred and substantial quantities of materials were stolen away by miscreants from the stores.
On three specific charges, namely, (i) dereliction of duty, (ii) handing over charge of office to his reliever without making verification of the materials in the stores and (iii) repeated acts of misconduct in spite of the number of the minor punishment awarded against him in the past, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. His explanations to the charges was not found satisfactory.
The petitioner was admittedly offered opportunity to participate in the enquiry and to defend his case. The Enquiry Officer, relying upon the evidences adduced by the prosecution''s witnesses, recorded his finding of guilt, declaring that all the three charges against the petitioner stood proved.
The petitioner was thereafter served a copy of the Enquiry Report along with a show-cause notice to explain against the proposed punishment. The explanations, which he had offered was though considered, but finding the same not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report, had awarded the punishment mentioned above. The petitioner thereafter filed his Appeal against the order of his removal from service, before the Appellate Authority but by the impugned order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal.
The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders, both of the Disciplinary Authority as also of the Appellate Authority, on the ground that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and not in consonance with the weight of evidences on record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner explains that the responsibility for the occurrence of theft in the stores ought to have been thrust upon the petitioner''s reliever because at the time of taking charge of duty from the petitioner, his reliever did not make a physical verification of the materials in the stores and if at all, it is the reliever who ought to have been held guilty for dereliction and negligence of duty.
Learned Counsel argues further that the Appellate Authority has merely adopted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has dismissed the petitioner''s appeal without appreciating the grounds, as raised by the petitioner and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without application of mind.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other while referring to the several paragraphs of the counter affidavit, explains that the departmental proceeding was initiated and conducted against the petitioner after strict observance of the Rules of procedure. The petitioner was given adequate and reasonable opportunity of defending his case and the Enquiry officer had found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The copy of the Enquiry Report was also served upon the petitioner and he was given a second show-cause notice to explain as to why the contemplated punishment should not be imposed upon him and thus a full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that there has been any miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural justice.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as also that of the Appellate Authority. I have also gone through the Enquiry Report and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. From the documents available on record, I do find that the petitioner was given adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend his case and to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. The findings of the Enquiry officer, as appearing from the Enquiry Report, is based on the evidences collected. I also find from the impugned order of the Appellate Authority that a detailed and elaborate discussion, not only of the grounds raised by the petitioner, but also of the materials which had surfaced in the departmental enquiry, was made and thereafter, by assigning reasons for rejecting the grounds advanced by the petitioner, the Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any perversity or impropriety either in the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report or in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority or in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. There being no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed.