I.P. Mukerji, J. - (1.) In this case, an accountant in the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter "the company"), has been charge -sheeted and removed from service. I am convinced on perusal of the records that this accountant was thoroughly guilty of falsifying accounts, by which works contractors with the company got the benefit of extra payment. But, what is most disconcerting is that in investigating this kind of a financial misappropriation only this accountant who used to hold a clerical position has been charge -sheeted and dismissed from service. No other official was even asked to explain the defalcation, far less being charge -sheeted. If there was a financial misappropriation of Rs. 5,81,000/ - there surely must have been other officials of the company involved to facilitate it. The Company is a subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Limited, a Government of India company. In a Government of India organisation, it is absolutely unbelievable that an accountant would falsify accounts, as a result of which, contractors would get an extra payment of Rs. 5,81,000/ -, without verification by any other superior official employed by the company or by other departments of it. The writ petitioner was a head assistant of the accounts department. When the writ petitioner had falsified such records and even prepared the contractors' bills for payment, those bills could not have been paid to the contractor unless they were verified by officials of the accounts department, the billing department and officials who were responsible for the work which the work contractors were carrying out. What is most surprising is that an enquiry was made only against this head assistant of the accounts department as a result of which he was dismissed from service.
(2.) As I have noted earlier, such falsification of accounts is established. It is also established that this head assistant had played his part in the falsification of the accounts. But when it is seen that a government organisation takes action only against this head assistant, without even initiating an enquiry against the others, considerable doubts, are raised in the mind of the court about the bonafides of such action taken. When this kind of a doubt is raised in the mind of the court, as has been raised in this case, the court should not use its power in equity to exonerate a person who is admittedly guilty. But the court will use its power in equity to interfere with the quantum of punishment that has been imposed, that is, the punishment of dismissal from service, which I propose to do in this order. If a thorough enquiry had been ordered by the company and all officials of the company responsible for preparation of bill, verifying the claims, and making payment of those claims were brought to justice by issuance of appropriate show cause notices or charge -sheets, asked to answer the charges therein, thereafter held guilty and if the writ petitioner was one of such persons, I would not have even interfered with the punishment imposed on him. In circumstances as above, when it is absolutely plain that a group of people was involved in such misappropriation and only one person has been removed from service, this order of dismissal from service smells of an action which victimizes one person, so that other persons can escape freely.
(3.) Now I turn to the facts in detail.;