- (1.) PRESENT petition has been preferred against the action taken by the respondents in dismissing the present petitioner from the services for the misconduct. Even appeal, preferred by the present petitioner before the departmental appellate authority, has also been dismissed vide order dated 27th September, 2007 (Annexure -7 to the memo of petition) and, therefore, this petition has been preferred.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that several charges have been levelled against the present petitioner, but, the fact remains that the amount alleged, which has been misappropriated by the petitioner, have already been deposited to the concerned employee of respondent no. 1, therefore, a heavy punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct, committed by the present petitioner and, therefore, the quantum of punishment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded to the respondent authorities for fresh decision. It is alternatively submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct, whatsoever. The charges have not been proved, looking to the evidence on record, but, the conclusion has been wrongly arrived at by the inquiry officer and the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the petitioner was arrested on the next date and, therefore, amount could not be paid to the employee immediately. Otherwise, the currency notes were soiled, therefore, payments could not be paid to the employee, but the amount was already paid at the later stage. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the respondents and, therefore, the order of termination of the present petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who has submitted that there areseveral charges against the present petitioner. He has not paid entire salary to several employees and, therefore, charges were levelled against the present petitioner, charge -sheet was given on the basis of complaints, filed by the employees. The petitioner was disbursing the salary as per his duty. Looking to the complaints received, charge -sheet was given and, thereafter, inquiry was conducted after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Inquiry officer gave a report that all the charges levelled against the petitioner, have been proved and, therefore, second show -cause notice was also given to the petitioner and the petitioner was heard again upon quantum of punishment and ultimately, his services have been terminated by dismissal order. Even the appeal preferred by the present petitioner has also been dismissed vide order at Annexure -7 to the memo of petition and, thus, there is no procedural defect in holding inquiry and giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that looking to the nature of misconduct, punishment cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment. Charges levelled against the present petitioner are as under: - "The charges leveled against Shri Sahay is serious in nature. Under clause 26(1) (10), 26(1)(11) and 26(1)(13), charge sheet was issued to Shri Ram Jivan Sahay. The details of the charges is incorporated against the above clause are indicated here -in below; 26.1.10. - Habitual indiscipline or willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of higher authority. 26.1.11. - Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with Company's business or property 26.1.13. - Taking or giving, offering or asking for bribes or any illegal gratification what so ever or indulging in corrupt practices." In view of the aforesaid proved charges and as the respondents want to maintain good governance at the work place and looking to the gravity of the charges, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. In past also, the very same petitioner has deducted or not made payment of salary to the Loaders (Class -IV employees). Thus, the punishment cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate or unreasonably excessive punishment, looking to the proved misconduct and even the past record of the present petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in February 2004 also, the present petitioner had not disbursed the correct salary to the employees, likewise much details have been given in para 11 of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, wherein, it is stated that similarly situated other employees have not received correct salary by the petitioner. Earlier misconduct was accepted by the petitioner as stated in para 12 of the counter affidavit. Thus, enough opportunities were given to the petitioner to rectify his mistakes, but, the petitioner has continued his behaviour, which affects the prestige of the respondent -Company, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore also, this Court may not interfere with the quantum of punishment, inflicted upon the petitioner and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Isee no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) The present petitioner was working as Clerk with the respondents and his duty was to disburse the salary to the Class -IV types of employees. (ii) It also appears from the facts of the case that in the year, 2004, the petitioner had not made proper payment of salary to several employees, therefore, they made complaints to the employer, who is respondent no. 1 and on the basis of the written complaints, charge -sheet was issued to the present petitioner and the charges, as stated hereinabove, were levelled against the present petitioner. The petitioner had not made payment of the salary to three employees ultimately inquiry officer was also appointed, inquiry was conducted after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. (iii) Inquiry report was given on 1st October, 2004 and the charges levelled against the present petitioner have been held as proved. The charges levelled against the present petitioner are serious in nature. First charge is habitual indiscipline or willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of higher authority, second charge is theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with Company's business or property and the third charge is taking or giving, offering or asking for bribes or any illegal gratification whatsoever or indulging in corrupt practices. (iv) It appears that the present petitioner has not made payment of the salary to Shri Gun Bahadur, Shri KewalMondal and Shri Baidyanath Manjhi. Pleas taken by the delinquent that the currency notes were soiled and, therefore, he has taken the currency notes at his residence, is not accepted by this Court. The said currency notes were never deposited with the employer and only after his arrest, the money has been paid to the concerned employees. (v) It also appears that in February 2004, money, from the salary of three persons, were deducted,unauthorizedly. This fact has been narrated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. (vi) Thus, looking to the inquiry report, it appears that the charges have been levelled against the present petitioner and in past also, similar is the misconduct of deducting salary from Class -IV type of employees. In these set of circumstances, I am not inclined to quash the punishment, inflicted upon the present petitioner. Adequate opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner, even second show cause notice has also been given to the petitioner. Thus, there is no procedural defect in holding inquiry and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Thus, there is no procedural defect at all on the part of the respondent -management. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, cannot be said as shockingly disproportionate punishment, looking to the nature of proved charges. Charges levelled against the present petitioner are serious in nature, he has deducted the salary of the poor employees of respondent no. 1 even in past also, similar is the misconduct, committed by the present petitioner, as alleged in para 11 of the counter affidavit. Earlier misconduct was also admitted by the present petitioner as per para 12 of the counter affidavit. In view of these facts also, adequate chances have been given in the past to rectify his mistakes and behaviour, but, the petitioner has continued the said misconduct again and again. In view of these facts, quantum of punishment, inflicted upon the petitioner, cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment. ;