- (1.) While in service, when the petitioner was working as Mechanic/Mandi Inspector at Palwal, a special physical verification of gunny bales lying in various godowns under the FSC, Palwal was conducted by a Committee, which reported shortage of 25 Nos. of gunny bales costing about Rs.2,50,000/- and 46 Nos. of gunny bales consumed unauthorisedly from the stock of gunny bales lying with the petitioner. As such, two Show Cause Notices bearing No.Acctt.(2)/6/2177-79 dated 17.5.2006 and No.Acctt.(w)/06/2169-70 dated 17.5.2006 were issued to him to deposit the cost of said bardana amounting to Rs.7,10,000/-. Petitioner submitted reply to the Show Cause Notice bearing No.2177-79 dated 17.5.2006 regarding shortage of 25 Nos. gunny bales, but did not submit any reply to other Show Cause Notice regarding shortage of 46 Nos. of gunny bales, shown to have been consumed unauthorisedly. The reply of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and thus, he was chargesheeted for the said acts of omission and commission on his part, which constituted grave misconduct in terms of Section 21 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, applicable to him, and for causing a loss of Rs.7,10,000/- to the Corporation. The petitioner failed to file any reply to the said chargesheet.
(2.) Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who after recording evidence and affording opportunity to the petitioner, held as under:- "Regarding shortage of 25 Nos. gunny bales, he sent his reply to the notice dated 17.5.2006 to the Corporation. The explanation submitted by him is unsatisfactory and non-specific. He did not clarify about the shortage of 25 Nos. gunny bales, rather, asked that he should be told that 25 Nos. gunny bales shown against his name are of which account. Regarding shortage of 25 Nos. bales, the DGM, FSC, Palwal found the reply of Sh. Satbir Singh, C.O. unsatisfactory and quoted that he was responsible for shortage of 25 bales and also for the unauthorized consumption of 46 Nos. gunny bales. Sh. K.K. Karwal in his statement admitted that there was a transfer of 25 Nos. bales to Hodel and Hodel accepted it but Sh. Satbir singh has made two entries of 32+25 bales as transferred to Hodel and no gate pass was supplied. Sh. Satbir Singh C.O. admitted in cross-examination during the statement of Sh. T.K. Gupta that 46 Nos. gunny bales were consumed for filing of grain/bajra for dara operation etc. The Charged Official did not give detail or any account of these 46 bales why, where and how these were consumed. Sh. Satbir Singh failed to give any account or proper information to the Corporation though two show cause notices were issued to him on 11.5.2006. he even did not give any proper information to the DGM, FSC, Palwal when he asked him to send his comments and clarify the position of the shortage of 25 Nos. bales as well as consumption of 46 bales unauthorisedly. He even did not submit any reply to the charge sheet dated 21.6.2007. During enquiry proceedings, his behaviour was found very casual and non-responsive. He failed to justify the shortage of 25 Nos. gunny bales costing to Rs.2.50 lacs and also unauthorized consumption of 46 Nos. gunny bales costing to Rs.4.60 lacs, rather, avoided to reply to the notice of the Corporation, reply to the letters of DGM, FSC, Palwal and even did not submit his defence reply/statement during the course of enquiry. He did not submit any account at any stage regarding of 25 Nos. bales and unauthorized consumption of 46 Nos. gunny bales. Therefore, the charges leveled against him in the charge sheet stand proved."
(3.) As per rules, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the punishing authority, proposing to impose penalty of termination of his services, besides recovery of the losses caused by him. Petitioner was also granted personal hearing. However, he neither submitted any reply to the Show Cause Notice nor availed the opportunity of personal hearing. Thus, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure P-12). Petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of termination of his services before the appellate authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 5.11.2009 (Annexure P-14).;