M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) INITIALLY the petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to change the venue of the departmental proceeding from Hyderabad to Bokaro Steel City and also for change of the Enquiry Officer as also the Presenting Officer but since during the pendency of the writ petition final order of dismissal of the petitioner from service in the said ex parte departmental proceeding has been passed, the petitioner has also challenged the order of dismissal by filing amendment petition which has been allowed by order dated 22.3.99.
(2.) FACTS of the case in briefs is that the petitioner joined the service of the respondents in 1968 and he was to superannuate on 31.12.2000. In the year, 1994 he became the member of a Committee under a scheme known as 'Employees Voluntary Welfare Fund. ' There were four members in the said Committee including Sri B.L. Roy, a senior officer of the respondents of the status of General Manager. Out of four persons of the Committee cheques were to be issued under the joint signatures of any of the two members to the beneficiaries under the said scheme. In 1997 a charge -sheet was issued against the petitioner on the basis of statement of allegations that 12 cheques were signed by the petitioner during the period May, 1996 to August, 1996 as a committee member which were presented for the signature by one Sri P.N. Gupta of the Accounts department. Those 12 cheques were issued under the joint signatures of the petitioner and another member of the Committee, namely, Sri B.L. Roy. It was alleged that the petitioner had aided in the misappropriation of the amount drawn against the said 12 cheques. On the basis of the charge -sheet a proceeding was initiated and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. After holding sittings of the enquiry at Hyderabad and Bokaro the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the departmental enquiry ex parte and submitted enquiry report. On the basis of the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order by way of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the entire departmental enquiry and the order of punishment as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned ' counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer, in spite of the protest and objection made by the petitioner, proceeded with the enquiry at Hyderabad and concluded it ex parte without giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel drew my attention to various documents including the minutes of the proceedings of the departmental inquiry and submitted that the Enquiry Officer had decided to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner so as to enable the Disciplinary Authority to pass the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Learned counsel lastly submitted that although Mr. B.L. Roy against whom also a departmental proceeding was initiated but he was given a minor punishment of stoppage of two increments.
(3.) MR . R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner participated in the enquiry but on the last date of the proceeding he withdrew himself from the enquiry when his prayer for stay of the departmental proceeding was refused by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner deliberately and intentionally did not participate in the enquiry with the sole object to delay the proceeding and in that view of the matter the Enquiry Officer had no option but to proceed with the enquiry ex parte and conclude the same.;