- (1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by which he has been removed from service after holding departmental enquiry against him.
(2.) The petitioner was serving as Assistant Manager in the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation and during the period between September 1995 to October 1995, he was discharging his duties as Branch Manager and he was also required to make recovery of the loans advanced to various units. In this capacity, he had gone to effect recovery of certain loan amounts in a camp organized by the respondent corporation at Phulera and at that time, it is alleged that he had recovered Rs. 15600/- from one Ramesh Chand Kumawat brother of the original loanee Mohanlal. The respondent corporation advanced loan to one Mohan Lal, proprietor of Kumawat Mukesh Steel Furniture, Phulera. The said loanee had died on 10-12-1989. Since the documents were in the custody of the corporation, the brother of the loanee Ramesh Chand Kumawat paid up the said loan amount of Rs. 15600/- in cash to the petitioner, but according to the corporation, the said amount was not credited in the account of the corporation and subsequently, said Ramesh Chand Kumawat made a complaint against the petitioner and that is how the enquiry proceedings started against the petitioner. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that charge against the petitioner for misappropriation of the said amount was proved and ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner, imposed the penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. It is the aforesaid penalty order of the Disciplinary Authority which is impugned in this Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the petitioner at the relevant time had received Rs. 15600/- from said Ramesh Chand Kumawat, but after receiving the amount, since the petitioner found that the notes were not in good condition, he returned the aforesaid amount back to said Ramesh Chand Kumawat and he took back the receipt given to the said person. According to the petitioner, he has not committed any misconduct as after receipt of the amount, he realized that the currency notes were not in good condition, therefore, he had not kept the amount with him. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the petitioner obtained an undertaking from Ramesh Chand wherein he has stated that the petitioner had handed over the amount back to him. It is also the say of the learned counsel for the petitioner that said Ramesh Chand would not have waited for such long time and would have tried to take back his documents lying with the corporation and therefore, there is no substance in the complaint made by the said person. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the corporation initiated departmental proceedings against petitioner at the instance of the respondent No. 3 Shri L. S. Keniya, who was Deputy Manager in the Corporation and the said officer was keeping grudge against the petitioner and therefore, he tried his best to see that the petitioner is involved in some case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though it is true that the decision of the department can be challenged by statutory appeal, but since the Chairman is the signatory of the impugned order of removal from service, there is no meaning in preferring appeal as the Chairman would also be sitting for deciding such appeal. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any case, the penalty inflicted upon the petitioner is on higher side as the amount involved in the matter is only Rs. 15600/- and therefore, a penalty other than removal from service could have been inflicted on the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry and since he was not present, ex parte enquiry was held against him. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Disciplinary Authority may be set aside and appropriate order for reinstating the petitioner in service may be passed.;