- (1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the impugned order dated 19.5.2016 and the order in appeal thereagainst passed on 2.5.2017.
(2.) The petitioner at the relevant time was working as LDC- Assistant Store Controller in the office of the ACOS Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Dausa and was charge sheeted on 25.6.2013 for alleged negligence when transformers were sent for repairs for reason of which the Nigam sustained losses of Rs.1,03,630/- and Rs.73,600/- under two heads. One erroneously showing transformers to be received without oil and the second of not noting that two of the timely defective transformers received were within the guarantee period. The petitioner states to have filed reply of complete denial to the chargesheet on 9.8.2013. It was his case that none of the two losses of Rs.1,03,630/- and Rs.73,600/- were attributable to his negligence in any manner whatsoever. It was submitted that the transformers were as per records of JVVNL itself sent for repairs at 10.30 PM on 28.7.2012 when the petitioner prior thereto as per JVVNL's records had left duty at about 6 PM. It was submitted that for this reason the petitioner could not have potentially checked and ensured compliance within the rules and procedures as laid down for sending defective transformers received in office for repairs. It was further submitted that in fact it was not even the duty of the petitioner as LDC cum Assistant Store Controller to check whether the defective transformers were with oil or without oil and whether any of them were within guarantee period.
(3.) The petitioner's case is that Disciplinary Authority however without taking into consideration any defence of the petitioner merely on the basis of the charges levelled, with a pre-conceived notion found the petitioner guilty and imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide its order dated 19.5.2016. Aggrieved of the order dated 19.5.2016 the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same has been dismissed perfunctorily also by non-speaking order which did not reflect any due application of mind to the defence of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the record of the office of ACOS, Dausa which shows that the petitioner was not responsible for sending the defective transformers for repairs and consequently could not be negligent for any losses suffered by the JVVNL has also not been considered either by the disciplinary or the appellate authority.;