Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the dismissal order dated 22.05.2003. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant on 02.05.1970. On 03.05.2002, a charge -memo was served upon the petitioner and after an enquiry, the enquiry report dated 13.11.2002 was submitted. The order of penalty dated 22.05.2003 was passed against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating as under: 20. "That with reference to paragraph 2 (ix) of the writ application, I say that the petitioner kept Shri R.N. Das in dark. He did not disclose his act of mala fide intention that he was delaying the submission of local cheques of M/s. Vikas Steel before the company's Bank on the day, the cheques were required to be submitted. As such no discrimination has been made. 24. That with reference to paragraph 2(xiii) of the writ application, I say that the contention of the petitioner is not true, hence denied. I say that the petitioner was responsible for physically submitting the financial instruments before the company's Bank for encashment of cheques, in delaying the submission of local cheques of M/s. Vikas Steel before the company's Bank on the day these were required to be submitted. This tactics of delay in submission resulted into financial loss to the company and gain to the party. 25. That with reference to paragraph 2(xiv) of the writ application, I say that Bank Guarantee is required to be availed when no cheques are submitted in time, i.e., when party becomes defaulter. Here, the case is that the party was submitting the cheques in time, but concerned dealing person was keeping it pending for personal and party's gain and loss to the company. 41. That with reference to the statement made in paragraph 21 of the writ application, I say that the petitioner had himself confirmed in his statement given to the Vigilance (MD -5) that he was depositing the cheques of M/s. Vikas Steel in the company's Bank after delaying for few days on the instructions of Shri N.N. Sinha. The claim of the petitioner that his controlling officer was Shri R.N. Das, is not tenable because he could not produce any document evidence/office order in support of the same. 42. That with reference to the statement made in paragraph 22 of the writ application, I say that the claim of the petitioner that his Controlling Officer was Shri R.N. Das is not tenable because he could not produce any documentary evidence/office order in support of the same. As far as the charges leveled against the petitioner so far late submission of cheques in company's Bank and tampering of official documents are concerned, are proved for which documentary evidences are also available. 58. That I say that in respect of other officials who were involved in the racket regarding the transactions with M/s. Vikas Steel case have also been prosecuted by the respondents, details of which are as follows: - (i) Shri N. Roychoudhary, C.F.M. (S & E) was removed from services with effect from 04.08.2003. (ii) Shri Ajay Kumar, Incharge of Cash Section was awarded with punishment of reduction in pay by three stages in existing time scale of pay for two years without cumulative effect on 20.01.2003. (iii) Shri Subrato Roy, Dy. C.F.M. (Cash) was awarded punishment of censure. (iv) Shri S. K. Choudhary, G.M. (F & A) was awarded punishment of censure. (v) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cash Section was awarded punishment of removal from service. (vi) Shri N.N. Sinha was awarded punishment of reduction to lower grade S9 from S10 (Lowest pay) from 24.04.2002, by order dated 30.07.2003. (vii) Shri S. Prasad, D.G.M. is being proceeded against departmentally and the departmental proceeding against him is pending. (viii) Shri V.K. Singh has been awarded punishment of reduction to lower grade, minimum of scale E6 to E5 (minimum). (ix) Shri P. Damodaran was awarded punishment of reduction in pay by two steps for two years without cumulative effect by order dated 20.01.2003. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner bringing on record the charge -memo, enquiry report and the order of punishment passed in the case of another delinquent employee namely, N.N. Sinha.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;