- (1.) By Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk (T) CategoryI vide letter dated 25.02.1991. On 06/10.01.1997, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner for committing misconduct under Clauses 26.1.2, 26.1.11 and 26.1.15 of the Certified Standing Order of BCCL. An inquiry was conducted into the matter and the inquiry report dated 05.04.1997 was submitted finding the charges not proved. Subsequently, on the basis of joint inspection report dated 03.10.1997, another charge memorandum dated 19.10.2000 was issued to the petitioner. An inquiry was conducted into the matter and the inquiry report dated 04.01.2004 was submitted finding the charges proved against the petitioner. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.04.2007 to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The penalty of dismissal from service was passed on 28.04.2007, and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 16.10.2009
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed stating as under: 5. "That now it is well settled principle of law that exoneration in a criminal case does not mean that the order of dismissal deserves to be quashed. Reference in this regard can be had to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India MANAGEMENT, 2007 9 SCC 755, NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION v. NOIDA, 2007 10 SCC 385 and DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. KADARBHAI J SUTHAR, 2007 10 SCC 561. 9. That the points formulated in para 2 of the writ application would not fall for consideration of this Hon'ble Court. It is now well settled principle of law that this Hon'ble Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not reappreciate evidence. The petitioner has not made out a case that the order of punishment is against the doctrine of proportionality or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is stated that since the charge of theft of diesel has been proved, the order of dismissal from service cannot be held to be disproportionate. 12. That the statements made in paragraph 11 are matters of record. It is stated that the enquiry in respect to charge sheet dated 6/10.01.1997 did not conclude and before conclusion of the said charge sheet the charge sheet itself was cancelled. It is denied that the charges were never proved.";