Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.) The respondent No. 1 was at the relevant point of time a Meter Inspector in the Revenue Department of the appellant company. On 25th May, 1985, he was assigned to inspect the meter of one Gopal Chandra Nath, a consumer of the appellant company. On 27th May, 1985, the said consumer lodged a complaint with the appellant company that the respondent No. 1 had demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- not to disconnect supply and to settle the matter regarding non-consumption at the workshop of the respondent No. 1. The consumer was asked to meet the respondent No. 1 at his office with the money on 27th May, 1985.
(2.) On receipt of the complaint, the appellant caused a preliminary investigation into the complaint and thereafter issued a show-cause notice to the respondent No. 1 on 3rd June, 1985. Not being satisfied with the reply to the said show-cause notice, the appellant company issued a chargesheet to the respondent No. 1 on 15th June, 1985. On 19th June, 1985, an Enquiry Committee was constituted under the Standing Rules and on conclusion of the enquiry the management representative found the respondent No. 1 guilty of the charges levelled against him. The two other members selected by the workmen were, however, of the view that the respondent No. 1 should be given the benefit of doubt and should be absolved of such charges. The findings of the Enquiry Committee were forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority who was of the view that the respondent No. 1 should be dismissed from service.
(3.) The respondent No. 1 was informed of the said decision of the Disciplinary Authority by a letter dated 29th October, 1985, and being aggrieved thereby the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under clause 19(c) of the Standing Orders of the appellant Company. After hearing all the respective parties, the appellate authority by its order dated 4th December, 1985, upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.;