PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing office order dated 2/9.2.2011 whereby the appellate authority while modifying the original order of punishment reduced the punishment to "demotion to lower stage/Grade" and directed for recovery of Rs. 2,80,975/- and further directed to treat the period from dismissal from services till the date of joining as 'Dies Non".
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner while posted as Chief Cashier at Tekadi Camp, Nagpur, he was served with a charge-sheet on the allegation that while he was posted at Anandwan Camp, Nagpur, discrepancies in cash-book and the Imprest amount of the Anandwan Camp including physical cash balance shortfall of Rs. 2,84,878/- was found, thereby he committed misconduct of theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that the said allegation is not based upon evidence and material. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer, who upon inquiry submitted enquiry report. Basing on which, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from services vide order dated 30.09.2010. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was disposed of vide order dated 2/9.02.2011, which is impugned in this case.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that imputation of allegation forming part of alleged misconduct do not fall within the category of Para 26.01 and 26.05 of the Certified Standing Order and further the author of the charge-sheet is not delegated with the power to issue charge-sheet, which fact has not been taken into consideration by the enquiry officer or disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the enquiry officer did not consider that piece of evidence wherein the witness has categorically stated about the manner in which cash affairs of the camp was being managed during the absence/ leave of the petitioner i.e. Cashier. Further, the committee did not physically verify the cash at Anandwan Camp and in cross-examination, he admitted that he did not demand the key of the cash chest from the imprest holder. Hence, the enquiry report is perverse as the findings recorded therein are not based upon the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the appellate authority did not consider the points raised in appeal and passed a cryptic order. It has been submitted that the word "Consider" has been great significance. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Chairman LIC and Ors v. A. Masilamani, as reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 and also the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and anr as reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301.;