- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner in the writ applications is to quash the impugned order dated 3.10.1995, communicated vide Memo No. 591 dated 5.10.1995 (Annexure -1) and the order dated 17.4.1998, communicated vide Memo No. 579 dated 28.4.1998 (Annexure -2) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the appeal preferred by him against the order of dismissal has been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner was posted as Jan Sewak in Jaridih Block in the District of Bokaro. While he was posted as such, by an order dated 15.1.1993 he was suspended from service, on the allegations that he misappropriated ark amount of Rs. 44,400/ - advanced to him for distribution amongst the old age pensioners. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. After receipt of the charges, he filed his representation/show cause. The charges against the petitioner were found to be proved in the departmental proceeding and, thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority by an order contained in Annexure -1 dated 5.10.1995, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order of dismissal, which was also dismissed by a detailed order contained in Annexure -2 dated 28.4.1998. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed against the petitioner was violative of the principle of natural justice since no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. He further submitted that the departmental enquiry was held only in one day and it was nothing but the eye wash. Without serving a copy of the enquiry report, he has been dismissed from service. Lastly, he submitted that out of the total alleged defalcation amount of Rs. 44,400/ -, he has already deposited Rs. 15,000/ - and, therefore, the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges and is harsh.
(3.) FROM the impugned orders, particularly from the appellate order (Annexure -2) it appears that the learned Commissioner has considered the evidence and materials on record in detail. It also appears that the petitioner was given full opportunities to defend himself and the case of the defence has also been noted in the said appellate order. The appellate court has stated that the petitioner's story is curious and it is clear that he has encashed two cheques dated 11.11.1992 and 13.11.1992 and kept the money with him till 23.11.1992 without going to the post office for sending it by money orders. The petitioner's story the entire money, kept in his house, was stolen by his son has been disbelieved and has been rejected.;