K.M.Yusuf, J. - (1.) In this Rule the order of dismissal passed in the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is under challenge. The facts of the case, inter alia, are as under: The petitioner was an employee under the West Bengal State Electricity Board as a Store-Keeper, Grade II, Chanchal (O & M) Sub-division in the district of Malda. As the Store-Keeper, the petitioner's functions included to keep accounts of the goods kept in the store and also to keep a register regarding delivery of goods from the store on the basis of order or slip issued by the authority. In April, 1979 there was a severe storm in various parts of Malda district including Chanchal Sub-division and as a result a large number of electric poles were broken and electric lines were damaged. Immediate action was taken and the contractors went at work for the restoration of supply and for this work the contractors were supplied materials on the basis of "Loan Slip" on the instruction of the Assistant Engineer, Chanchal. The Accountant of Internal Audit raised objection for the irregular procedure and the Assistant Engineer by a letter, dated 31st July, 1979 requested the Divisional Engineer, Malda to regularise the matter.
(2.) On 11th April, 1980 the petitioner was served with a Charge-sheet, dated 24th March, 1980 directing him to show cause, within a specified period of the charges made against him. The charges levelled against him included alleged misappropriation of the Board's property amounting to Rs. 64,786.14 ; manipulation of the records of various accounts, gross misconduct, violation of discipline, etc., but no imputation or particulars of the charges were provided. The petitioner by a letter, dated 18th April, 1980 addressed to the Chief Engineer (R & D) asked for several particulars and documents and the names of persons to be examined so that he could make out a defence; otherwise the charges would be vague and indefinite. But neither particulars nor inspection nor any particulars of documents of the charges or the names of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner and he was intimated by a letter, dated 19th May, 1980 that the petitioner would be given an opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to inspect the documents and take extracts thereof. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner could not take any effective defence and by a letter, dated 24th December, 1981 the respondent No.3 fixed the date of the disciplinary proceeding. By a second Show Cause Notice, dated 1st July, 1982 the Secretary of the West Bengal State Electricity Board forwarded the findings of the Enquiry Officer stating that the charges have been established at the enquiry which are of grave nature and the punishment called for is the dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Board. As such the petitioner was given 15 days time for further opportunity of defence as regards the proposed punishment of dismissal. The petitioner challenges this dismissal Order as totally illegal and mala fide.
(3.) The respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition wherein, the allegations of the petitioner were refuted and main instances of man1pulation were recorded as under : (i) Original figures under column "quantity required" and "quantity supplied" were tampered. (ii) New items were inserted in the Store Requisition Notes subsequently to the delivery of materials. (iii) Fictitious issues were made through blank Store Requisition Notes and a (iv) Issues were recorded in excess of actual supply. The respondents stated that the petitioner participated in the enquiry throughout from 24th April, 1981 to 16th December, 1981 and was given full opportunity to defend himself. He submitted his explanation against the Charge-sheet, all opportunities for obtaining the copies of the documents on the basis of charges were provided by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner's representative cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and examined the documents. The petitioner did not examine himself or any other witnesses but produced documents which were marked Exhibits. When the charges were established as of grave nature and the punishment Galled {or was dismissal from service the petitioner was given an opportunity of defence before the final Order was passed and the second Show Cause Notice was found unsatisfactory and the dismissal Order, dated 1st December, 1982 was sent to the petitioner by Registered post. which returned back with the remark "refused". The respondents denied that the allegations made in the charge-sheets are indefinite, vague or without particulars. As such according to the respondents the disciplinary proceedings were properly conducted, full opportunity was given to the petitioner for defence and there is not irregularity. The Rule must accordingly be discharged.;