Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the punishment order, dated 04.03.2011 by which he has suffered penalty of reduction in pay-scale from Rs.8210/- + Rs.2400/- (BP+GP) to Rs.7900/- + Rs.2400/- (BP+GP) in the pay-band for one year which would have effect on his future increment, the appellate order dated 06.06.2011 and the revisional order dated 03.11.2011 by which the penalty order dated 04.03.2011 has been affirmed.
(2.) The petitioner was served a charge-memo on 04.08.2010; first charge pertains to failure of the petitioner to prevent theft of 36 pieces iron railway-crossing slippers on 19.07.2010 between 21:00 hrs to 05:00 hrs on 20.07.2010 and the second charge was in relation to his previous misconduct. The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.08.2010 denying the aforesaid charges. In the enquiry proceeding as many as seven witnesses were examined by the department. The petitioner has also examined one witness in his defence. After the enquiry report was submitted on 21.02.2011 a second show-cause notice was issued to him to which the petitioner replied on 02.03.2011. When he suffered the aforesaid penalty by an order, dated 04.03.2011 the petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by an order dated 06.06.2011. Thereafter revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 03.11.2011.
(3.) Contending that the enquiry officer has held that theft did not occur within the petitioner's area under patrolling and the prosecution witnesses have also not given the exact place of occurrence, Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on mere hypothesis a delinquent cannot be inflicted major penalty. As against the above, Mrs. Nitu Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner, who was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry proceeding, cannot challenge the penalty order on the ground that the charges levelled against him have not been proved to the hilt.;