Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) This writ petition challenges an order of punishment against the petitioner on 1st April, 1999, as affirmed in appeal on ⅙th of July, 1999, contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition.
(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to filing of the writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed as Junior Supervisor in the respondent National Thermal Power Corporation in 1983. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner with service of a charge-sheet upon him on 19.5.1995, accusing the petitioner of having raised false medical claims by making false entries/corrections in his own handwriting in Prescription slips, OPD Card, Cash Memos of doctors as well as that of AIIMS, New Delhi, with intention of enriching himself by fraudulent means. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet, denying the charges levelled. An enquiry proceeded in the matter, which resulted in a finding of guilt returned by enquiry officer against the petitioner, vide his enquiry report dated 23rd September, 1998. A show cause notice thereafter was issued to the petitioner on 5th October, 1998. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 14th January, 1999. The disciplinary authority found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved, and consequently, an order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner on 1.4.1999. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, petitioner preferred an appeal on 10.4.1999, which came to be rejected by the appellate authority on ⅙th of July, 1999. The order of disciplinary authority, as affirmed in appeal, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the orders impugned on the following grounds:- (i) The enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law, and stood vitiated, inasmuch as petitioner was denied cross examination of 10 witnesses, and according to petitioner, such grounds, urged in reply to the show cause notice as well as in appeal, have not been considered. (ii) The documents, which has been submitted by petitioner, have not been considered, and there is complete non-application of mind in the orders of the authorities, in so far as consideration of petitioner's defence is concerned. (iii) It is then contended that prosecution witnesses have not supported the charges levelled against the petitioner, and have rather admitted that no forgery were committed in the claim submitted by the petitioner, and that in view of such evidence, the charges were not proved on merits at all, but this aspect has escaped consideration. Reply to the show cause notice has also not been considered, inasmuch as none of the pleas taken in the reply to the show cause notice have been specifically dealt with or discussed in the matter. (iv) Last but not the least, it is submitted that the appellate order is a nonreasoned order, and in view of the law settled, the appellate order cannot be sustained.;