R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 24.5.1996 (Annexure -4), passed by Deputy General Manager, Personnel and Administration of respondent No. 1, whereby services of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 27.5.1996 and also for quashing the order of the appellate authority dated 31.10.1997 (Annexure -7) confirming the said order.
(2.) MR . B.V. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that impugned orders are beyond the evidence on the record. He further submitted that in any event, punishment was too harsh. He also submitted that Shri PVRASN Raju, storekeeper, has been reinstated in the service, who was actually guilty of misconduct. Mr. Babhan Lal, appearing for the respondents, submitted that scope of judicial review under writ jurisdiction is very limited and this Court may not sit in appeal over the said orders. He further submitted that the said Raju withdrew his writ petition filed against his dismissal before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and accepted his guilt, and the Management might have take a sympathetic view as he was only a store keeper but so far as petitioner is concerned he being a responsible officer and who was found guilty, cannot be reinstated.
(3.) A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the said Raju. Petitioner was working as Deputy Manager (Operation), Bokaro Unit in the year 1992. He was responsible for verification of incoming materials from the supplier. The charge against him was that he verified 2728 Mtrs. of Lancing Tubes purported to have been supplied under Challan dated 30.1.1992, as satisfactory, whereas in fact the material was not supplied by the party and full payment was released to it. By such acts, petitioner caused wrongful gain to the said party resulting wrongful pecuniary loss to the Company to the tune of Rs. 34,056.12. He was further charged that this act of omission and commission of the petitioner amounted to dishonesty in connection with the property of the Company thereby violating Rule 5(1) of CDA Rules and he also exhibited lack of integrity violating the Rule.;