- (1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner who at the relevant time was Section Officer in the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, has impugned orders of respondent No. 1 vide which the petitioner was reverted to the lower rank and was ordered not to be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance during the suspension period.
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that on July 13, 1971 petitioner joined Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corpora-lion) as a Clerk, and was promoted as Assistant in the year 1979. Thereafter, in the year 1983, petitioner qualified the Punjab State Accounts Service Examination and was promoted as Section Officer. While the petitioner was working as Section Officer, he was charge-sheeted for major misconduct, the details of which have been given in the charge-sheet dated September 7, 1988. Petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge-sheet and on consideration of the reply, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry. Though, the Enquiry Officer, in his report submitted to the disciplinary Authority, exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him, yet the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, served a show-cause notice upon the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority in its order dated May 17, 1991 held that Charge No. 2, i. e. obtaining payment fraudently, stands proved to the extent that the petitioner instead of getting the amount of bills adjusted, had withdrawn the amount to which he was not entitled to. Further, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, removal from service was considered too harsh a penalty and, thus, petitioner was ordered to be reverted to the lower rank from which he was promoted as Section Officer. Petitioner was also held not entitled to be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance already drawn during the suspension period. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2, who dismissed the same vide his order dated July 1, 1992. The petitioner has impugned the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as order of the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2) in the present writ petition.
(3.) IN reply, the respondents have stated that petitioner was held guilty of the charges by the Punishing Authority on the basis of material available on record. According to the respondents, the Punishing Authority passed a speaking and well-reasoned order after applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.;