- (1.) This is an application for quashing the order dated 24/ 26.12.1997 (Annexure-8) passed by Executive Director, Incharge (respondent no. 4), whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service. It appears that at the relevant time, petitioner was working under the respondents as Senior Manager (Materials). It is alleged that while working so, he purchased HSFG Bolts/Nuts size M 24 x 175 quantity 1000 Kg. and HSFG Bolts/ Nuts size M 20 x 90 quantity 1000 Kg. on a higher rate to favour M/s National Hardware Mart, Chas. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, following three charges framed against the petitioner;-- (1) Failure to maintain absolute integrity (breach of rules). (2) Fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business of the Company. (3) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Company.
(2.) It appears that petitioner filed show cause to the charges levelled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority being dissatisfied with the show-cause of petitioner initiated department inquiry against him and appointed Shri N.K. Mishra, A.G.M. (SF), as Inquiry Officer. It further appears that after conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report, wherein petitioner has been exonerated from Charge No. 1, However, he found him guilty of Charge Nos. 2 and 3. It further appears that Disciplinary Authority (respondent no. 4) accepted the findings of Inquiry Officer and, dismissed petitioner from the services of company. Aforesaid order (Annexure-8) is impugned in this writ application.
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that petitioner purchased HSFG Bolts/Nuts on higher price. It is stated that keeping in view the urgency of the matter, petitioner purchased said bolts/nuts from local market after taking approval of Finance Department as well as Executive Director of the Company. It is submitted that another Purchase Committee had gone to Calcutta for bringing quotation of other item i.e. HT Bolt. It is submitted that while proving charges levelled against petitioner, the Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority had considered the cost of HT Bolt which is different item. Accordingly, Shri Banerjee submitted that findings of Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority is perverse, being based on conjecture and surmises.;