Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 14.4.1981 (Annexure P -1), findings of the inquiry officer (Annexure P -5), punishment order dated 11.1.1993 (Annexure P -22) and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 23.11.1993 (Annexure P -24).
(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was working as inspector with the respondent -corporation. Chargesheet dated 14.4.1981 was served on the petitioner on the allegation that there was shortage of 474 bags of wheat and an amount of Rs. 73,470/ - was recoverable from him. Second charge levelled in the chargesheet against the petitioner was that he had not refunded the un -used balance amount of Rs. 20,698.56 paise out of total amount of Rs. 34,386.59 paise advanced to him. Petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet. The inquiry officer, however, gave the report against the petitioner. Vide the impugned order dated 11.1.1993 (Annexure P -22), penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. Further it was ordered that the amount of Rs. 77,218.86 paise be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. The appellate authority, vide order dated 23.11.1993 (Annexure P -24), dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order Annexure P -22. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry officer had erred in holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. In fact, the inquiry officer had failed to consider the fact that the successor in charge of the petitioner i.e. Ajit Singh, Inspector had shown excess of 133 bags of wheat in the month of August, 1980. Therefore, the department was liable to adjust the excess with the shortage alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Further the recovery was to be made proportionately from the concerned officials in terms of circular dated 4.10.1988.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the circular dated 4.10.1988 was issued after the misconduct was committed by the petitioner, therefore, it had no relevance to the facts of the present case. The inquiry officer had reported that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood duly proved. Therefore, the punishment order as well as the order passed by the appellate authority were liable to be upheld.;