- (1.) THE petitioner in the year 1990 was appointed as an Assistant under the Salary Saving Scheme of Life -Insurance Corporation of India at Dhanbad. Subsequently, he was promoted in the year 1996 to the post of Programmer -II in Branch Office of Katrashgarh. In course of time, he was served with a memo of charge dated 9.4.2001 containing following charges of: - "(i) misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1,22,650/ -. (ii) misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 64,264.90. (iii) putting to the company in a loss to the extent of Rs. 8,110/ -. (iv) misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 2400/ -. (v) 1307 numbers of unused receipts were recovered from his custody. (vi) Project Directory of the Back End System was found removed from the system and all the transactions files for the cash collections prior to 10.5.1999 were found removed from the Front End System. (vii) 5 Passwords were created using dummy Serial Nos. without any names except one. (viii) To have confessed his guilty in letter dated 3.6.1999 of depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - only to Katrasgarh Branch Office vide receipt no. 060257 dated 11.5.1999. (ix) misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 1,97,425/ -."
(2.) FOR holding departmental enquiry, the Divisional Manager (NB&SETL), Hazaribagh was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry, submitted its report on 12.10.2001 which is not on record but according to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer did not find the accused guilty of all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept that report rather sent back the matter before the Enquiry Officer for holding enquiry again. Thereupon, the Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry submitted its report on 9.5.2002. Against that report, the petitioner did file his representation on 9.7.2002 but no order was passed, rather the Disciplinary Authority vide its letter dated 7.8.2002 issued second show cause notice to the petitioner. Thereupon the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 20.7.2003 (Annexure -3) passed an order of removal of the petitioner from service and also for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,97,425/ -, the amount to which Life Insurance Corporation of India was put to loss by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal against that order and even a memorial preferred by the petitioner got dismissed affirming the order of removal. Being aggrieved with the order of removal and also by the order of Appellate Authority affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also by the order passed in memorial, this writ application has been preferred challenging those orders to be bad.
(3.) MR . Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the first instance when the enquiry was held the enquiry officer did not find all the charges to be proved and hence, when such report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority should have assigned the reason/ground for disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and by communicating the said reason, the petitioner should have been called upon to submit his explanation and after taking into consideration the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority should have sent the matter back for fresh enquiry, if the explanation submitted would have been found to be unsatisfactory.;