- (1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 31. 5. 1995 passed by Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Gorakhpur Division, Annexure-12 to the writ petition and order dated 19. 8. 1995 passed by Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Kanpur Office, Annexure-15 to the writ petition and the order dated 31. 12. 1996 passed by Chair man, Life Insurance Corporation, Bombay, Annexure-19 to the writ petition. Fur ther prayer is to issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as assistant under them with all benefits of continuous service including arrears of salary and promotion.
(2.) THE facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner was ap pointed on 3. 10. 1985 as assistant. On 14. 11. 1991 the petitioner was posted as cashier at Branch No. 2 of the Life Insurance Corporation at Gorakhpur. From the date of initial appointment the work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory and there were no complaints whatsoever against the petitioner On 6. 1. 1992 the petitioner was working as one of cashiers amongst three cashiers deputed for discharging duties at cash counter of Branch No. 2. At the end of working hours on 6. 1. 1992 all the cash collected by the three cashiers were pooled and thereaf ter counted in the present of Sri Radhey Shyam Mani, Higher Grade Assistant posted at the branch. After counting the aforesaid cash the same was entered in Daily Cash Book in the presence of Sri Radhey Shyam Mani and the same was counted and locked. At that point of time two other cashiers namely Sanjai Srivastava and Sri S. S. N. Tiwari were also present. THE cash box were taken to safe kept in the Chambers of Branch Manager. THE cash box was taken by one Sri N. P. Sharma, sub-staff and was accompanied by the petitioner, Sri Radhey Shyam. Mani and Sri A. P. Srivastava, Administrative Officer. THE same was kept in the safe and was locked up under the double lock with one key thereof being retained by Sri A. P. Srivastava the Administrative Officer and the other key of the same being retained by Sri Radhey Shyam Mani in their custody. After comple tion of the aforesaid certification the said fact was made in the branch Daily Cash Balance Bpok and the same was countersigned by the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam Mani and Sri A. P. Srivastava. At the time of making the aforesaid certifica tion Sri Radhey Shyam Mani (holder of Key No. 1 of the safe) made the following certification : "main PRAMANIT KARATA HOON KI UPROKT ROKAD, BAKSHE ME RAKHKAR ROKAD-BAKSHA TIJORI MEN RAKH DIYA GAYA HAI AUR MAINE TIJORI MEN TALA BAND KAR DIYA HAI. " The other certification was made by Sri A. P. Srivastava, the Administrative Officer, the holder of Key No. 2 which is as follows "main PRAMANIT KARATA HOON KI ROKAD-BAKSHATIJORI MEN RAKHAGAYAAUR TIJORI MEN TALA BAND KIYA GAYA. " In the morning of 7. 1. 1992 office peon namely Gyan Prakash Misra while opening the branch found door of the chambers of Branch Manager unlocked and immediately he intimated this fact to the Assistant Branch Manager and Assis tant Administrative Officer. The aforesaid officers waited for arrival of Sri A. P. Srivastava, Administrative Officer and thereafter it was found further that the lock of drawer of Sri A. P. Srivastava was broken. However, the safe was found to be in order. Thereafter, the safe was opened in the presence of several officers and employees including the petitioner. The cash box was brought out and upon counting of the cash it was found a short-fall of Rs. 1, 40, 806. 46p. A first information report to this effect was lodged at Police Station Kotwali. On the basis of the aforesaid report a case was registered as Case Crime No. 5 of 1992 under Section 409, IPC. During the course of investigation by police, it was found that in the back portion of the building of the Corporation, the aforesaid cash amount was located and it was found and deposited. Thereafter final report was submitted by the local police with regard to not having any hope for apprehending the culprit. After submission of the final report charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 25. 8. 1993 by the Senior Divisional Manager under Regulation 30 of Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1960. The said charge-sheet was accompanied by two documents namely the extract of Branch Daily Cash Balance Book dated 6. 1. 1992 and as also the Branch Daily Cash Balance Book dated 7. 1. 1992. No further document was enclosed with the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted reply denying the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Divisional Manager vide its order dated 30. 11. 1993 appointed one Sri B. B. Kapoor as enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. During the course of enquiry the Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of Sri D. S. Singh, then Senior Branch Manager, Sria. P. Srivastava, Administrative Officer, Sri Ram Krishna, Assistant Administrative Officer, Sri S. S. N. Tewari and Sri Sanjay Kumar (both cashiers) and Sri N. P. Sharma, Sub-Staff. An enquiry report was submitted on 30. 8. 1994 by the Inquiry Officer. On the basis of the enquiry report show cause notice was issued on 17. 1. 1995 by the Senior Divisional Manager, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of removal be not im posed. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 11. 2. 1995 and supplementary reply was also submitted by the petitioner on 4. 3. 1995. By order dated 31. 5. 1995, the Senior Divisional Manager passed an order removing the petitioner from service. Feeling aggrieved against the afore said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 3. 7. 1995. Against the order of removal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16524 of 1995 before this Court which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The appeal preferred by the peti tioner was dismissed by order dated 19. 8. 1995. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal of appeal submitted memorial to the Chairman and that too was rejected by order dated 31. 12. 1996. Aggrieved by the aforesaid or der, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) AS the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit have already been ex changed, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate that the entire proceeding conducted against petitioner are based on conjecture and surmises and petitioner has been held guilty without any basis and without any evidence in support thereof. All the cashiers posted at the branch office are allocated duties of cashier depending upon the availability of the cashiers on a particular date at the branch office. The senior Branch Manager prepared a panel of all assistants working at the said branch and duties of cashier were allocated to them in case of absence of any of the cashiers from the branch on a particular date. The key of the cash box was left in the custody of one of the cashiers (out of three cashiers) or the assistant discharging duties of cashier on the said date in rotation. It has been further submitted that there exists a further stipulation that the said key would not be left by the person concerned at the branch so that necessarily all persons who had discharged duties as cashier in the past have taken the key to the cash box along with them to their residences and any of them could have got a duplicate key prepared for the cash box. Before the Inquiry Officer, the office peon stated that occasionally he had seen Sri A. P. Srivastava, Administrative Officer taking out the key to the safe from the drawer from his desk itself. The order passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting the penalty of removal upon the petitioner as well as the appellate order have been passed mechanically without application of mind against the petitioner and ob jections raised by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer and against the enquiry report has not been considered. From the perusal of the enquiry report and the subsequent order, it is clear that the impugned orders are passed upon pure guess working without there being any cogent reason. It is also relevant to submit here that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner has made a request by making an application for the purposes of examination of Sri Radhey Shyam Mani. An application to this effect was filed on 2. 6. 1994 before the Inquiry Officer but the said request of the petitioner was rejected by means of the order dated 2. 6. 1994 itself. Sri Mani was one of the important witnesses who ought to have been examined during the course of disciplinary proceedings and refusal to do so or not to permit the petitioner to cross-examine Sri Mani is without any justifica tion and has resulted in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The request of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that as a request having been made belatedly, the ground of such rejection is totally misconceived and non-existent as enquiry proceeding was never concluded on 2. 6. 1994 nor the enquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer.;