- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 03.01.2002 reducing him to the post of Executive (E -1) in the scale of Rs 10,705 -300 -16,750 with immediate effect and his basic pay has been fixed at lowest stage, i.e. on 10,750/ -and it has further been ordered that for the purpose of promotion his seniority would be counted in E -1 grade w.e.f. 03.01.2002. He has also challenged the appellate order dated 25.02.2002 whereby his appeal has been dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 12.07.1972 in Bokaro Steel Limited on the post of Stores -man. He got regular promotions and in the year 1997 he was promoted to the post of Senior Executive (Stores). On 09.02.2001 a charge -memo was issued to the petitioner in which it was alleged that the petitioner did not check that the final notices were sent to the party immediately and after the final notices were issued to the party and the party did not lift or replace the rejected materials, the petitioner did not ask the Inspection Department to reject the whole quantity of the material. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.02.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred to B.F. (Sub -Store) where the cause of action has arisen on 30.04.1996. The petitioner assumed the charge in B.F. (Sub -Stores) on 07.11.1996. On 15.10.2001 the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the enquiry report on 27.10.2001 and by order dated 03.01.2002 the penalty as noticed above has been imposed upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 18.01.2002, which was rejected on 25.02.2002. In the counter -affidavit, it has been stated that during vigilance enquiry the petitioner has given a statement that after the final and pre -emptory notice dated 24.12.1996, no reminder was given to the party. He has admitted that he should have informed the Inspection Department and Finance and Accounts Department about the two cases in issue. The enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of enquiry charge against the petitioner was found proved and therefore, the order of penalty has been passed against him. The appellate authority also considered the materials available on record and finding that no case for interference has been made out, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two cases which are in issue are dated 20.11.1995 and 13.09.1995. The cause of action had arisen on 30.04.1996. The petitioner joined the department only on 07.11.1996 and therefore, it can not be said that the petitioner is responsible in any manner whatsoever, for the loss caused to the company. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner on record, such as, order of transfer, order of joining etc. have not been considered by the authorities and the penalty order has been passed in a mechanical manner and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.;