Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed with the following prayers: (i) For quashing portion of the order No. 015 dated 17.03.2004 issued by chief of Plant/Heavy Machine Building Plant and Disciplinary Authority whereby order has been passed that the petitioner is reduced to the lower stage of Rs. 9300/ - in the scale of pay of Rs. 7000 -275 -8100 -300 -9600/ - from his present basic pay of Rs. 9600/ - with immediate effect in terms of Rule 23(e) of Heavy Engineering Corporation Employees Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1981 and period of suspension of the petitioner has been ordered to be treated as dies on and petitioner will be paid only the subsistence allowances. (ii) For quashing the order dated 30.04.2004 by which partial modification has been made in the aforesaid order dated 17.03.2004 whereby order has been passed that the petitioner is reduced from his present basic pay of Rs. 9600/ - to 9300/ - in the time scale of Rs. 7000 -275 -8100 -300 -9600/ - for a period of one year from 17.03.04 and further order has been made that petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the aforesaid period, (as contained in Annexure -6 to this application). (iii) For quashing portion of the order dated 10.01.2005 whereby the appellate authority has restored the pay of the petitioner to Rs. 9600/ - from Rs. 9300/ - w.e.f. the date of increment in the year 2004 and not from 5.11.2002 (i.e. the date of suspension) causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner, (as contained in Annexure -6/A to this writ application). (iv) For quashing the letter No. 198 dated 30.07.2005 issued by General Manager, Heavy Machine Building Plant, Dhurwa, District Ranchi (respondent No. 2) whereby petitioner has been communicated that review petition of the petitioner has been found not tenable (as contained in Annexure -7 to this writ application). (v) For any other appropriate relief(s) to which the petitioner may be found entitled in law and equity. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Senior Manager, since 1996. On 05.11.2002, he was issued a charge -memo and he was put under suspension. A memorandum of charges dated 28.11.2002 was served upon the petitioner on the following allegations: Sri V.S. Shukla while functioning as Sr. Manager, Central Purchase, HMBP, changed the name of party/supplier in the price agreement No. 1383 dated 06/08/1998 without ascertaining the genuineness. Sri V.S. Shukla while functioning as Sr. Manager, Central Purchase, HMBP, Sent a cheque of value Rs. 40,052.00 without ascertaining physical procurement of spares for TA Division. Sri V.S. Shukla failed to complete the task assigned by the General Manager, HMBP. Sri V.S. Shukla was to make purchases of two locks of a good company other than Navtal available in local market. He failed to procure the same. Moreover he asked Sr. DGM l/c. MM/HMBP to write the name of the companies of which locks are to be purchased instead of finding out the name of such companies himself.
(2.) ON conclusion of enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted. The petitioner filed his representation and the order of penalty was passed on 17.03.2004 which was subsequently corrected by order dated 30.04.2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate authority by order dated 10.01.2005 modified the order of punishment dated 17.03.2004 ordering that pay of the petitioner would be restored at Rs. 9600/ - with effect from the date of increment, that is, since 2004. The revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 30.07.2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. A counter -affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceeding. In Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the counter -affidavit filed on the behalf of the respondents, it has been stated: 9. That in reply to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the writ application, it is stated that the petitioner was made incharge of the Central Purchase/H.M.B.P. with the responsibility and accountability for the functions of Central Purchase vide order dated 19.08.1999, he was transferred from Central Purchase/H.M.B.P. To Stores/H.M.B.P. As Incharge Stores vide Order dated 23.04.2002, he was placed under suspension as per rules contained in H.E.C. Employees' Conduct, disciplinary Appeal Rules, 1981 vide order dated 05.11.2002 of General Manager/HMBP & Disciplinary Authority. During the period on suspension, he was entitled to draw subsistence allowance as per rules. He was issued Memorandum of Charges as per the provisions of H.E.C. Employees' CDA Rules on 28.11.2002. He was also directed to submit written statements of defence within 10 days of receipt is memorandum of charges. 10. That in reply to paragraphs 7 to 9 of the writ application under reply, the answering respondents deny and dispute the same and further say and submit that the petitioner, instead of submitting timely reply as per Rules, went on to prolong the case on the pretext of supply of various documents and papers. The petitioner was already supplied all information and documents particularly the copies of lists as mentioned in memo of Charges were duly supplied to the petitioner for submitting his reply. It was only the tactics of the petitioner to prolong the case that he repeatedly demanded papers one after another. It is further stated that instead of submitting his reply, the petitioner again represented vide his letter dated 09.01.2003 insisting to supply all certified copy of the documents which was again replied to him vide letter dated 15.01.2003. The petitioner finally replied vide letter dated 27.01.2003. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the same and therefore, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner thus, instead of replying within ten days as per the memo of charges, took almost 2 1/2 months to file his written reply and inspite of supply of documents along with memo of charges, made allegation that no documents of time was granted to him is absolutely incorrect.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;