D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Shri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer had suggested a minor punishment but the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the same and had proposed a major punishment and had inflicted the punishment of dismissal. He contends that such order can be passed only after recording reason. In this case though reason has been recorded but it does not satisfy the test. He contends that the disciplinary authority could not disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer as well as with the punishment proposed. He next contends that the punishment should be proportionate to the charges proved. Here in this case the punishment was disproportionate. In as much as it was a sheer mistake of the identification made by the Sabapati of panchayat who had identified a wrong person. Therefore, he should not be punished so severely. On these grounds he prays for quashing of the punishment inflicted on the petitioner pursuant to the domestic enquiry held against him.
(2.) Shri Q. H. Slddiqui, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, contends that it is open to the disciplinary authority to disagree either with the finding of the enquiry officer or with the proposed punishment. However, he agrees that such disagreement should be supported by some reason which should be reflected in the order. According to him the order reflects suffidient reason and that the petitioner was also given opportunity to show cause against the punishment proposed. He further contends that the enquiry officer is not supposed to propose punishment. Such proposal is redundant. The disciplinary authority is free to propose any punishment having regard to the finding of guilt and gravity of the charges. According to him the employer had lost his confidence on the petitioner since he had sanctioned loan in favour of a wrong person and that too through a wrong document relating to security. The sum of loan may be nominal but seriousness or gravity of the lapses cannot be overlooked. It is the business of the employer which is to be secured and it is the consideration of the employer whether he should be retained or not. According to him, the punishment is not disproportionate.
(3.) 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent at length.;