D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the order dated -14.02.2002, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed against the petitioner. Challenge also is to the order dated -19.06.2004, passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority, has been rejected. Assailing the impugned orders, the grounds advanced by the petitioner is that the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority as also that of the appellate authority is illegal and is violative of the principles of natural justice in as much as the impugned orders have been passed without considering the fact that the petitioner was not granted adequate opportunity of being heard. The further ground on which the impugned orders have been assailed is that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge.
(3.) FACTS of the petitioner's case lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner was employed as a Driver under the Respondent -S.A.I.L. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on three specific charges, namely, (a) negligence in duty, (b) insubordination and (c) unauthorized use of the Company's property. Before commencing the departmental proceedings, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and he submitted his replies to the show cause notice but being dissatisfied with the explanations offered, the proceedings were commenced against him. In course of departmental proceedings, petitioner was given opportunity to participate and to cross -examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Committee after going through the evidences on record, have recorded its finding by holding that the charge of (i) negligence in duty and (ii) the charge of insubordination have not been proved. However, the finding on the third charge has been recorded in the following manner: The third charge i.e. unauthorized use of Company's properly is established to the extent of unauthorized use of the vehicle i.e. Truck, bearing No. BHR 6505 inside the plant on 07.05.1999 for filling diesel in it without any information or authorization of either of the reporting officers. The Enquiry Report with the above findings is submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. Upon perusing the Enquiry Report and the findings contained therein, the Disciplinary Authority recorded the impugned order of punishment by way of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the Appeal was dismissed.;