D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.10.2000 (Annexure -7), whereby the Disciplinary Authority has terminated his service with effect from 03.10.2000. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order of the Appellate Authority communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure -9), whereby the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of termination of his service.
(2.) HEARD Shri Sidheshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Banani Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. Background facts: The petitioner had joined the services under the respondents on the post of Driver in the year 1978. On 12.8.1998, he was served with charge sheet -cumsuspension order (Annexure -1) by his employer. The petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the charge sheet and on considering the same, he was though allowed to resume his duties with effect from 20.8.1998, but a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of the charge sheet. In the notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, the charge against him as stated, was as follows: "On the basis of the preliminary inquiry made by SE (E&M), Giddi ˜C' Colliery, it is found that during the duty hours on 6.8.1998, the petitioner has changed the diesel tank of the school bus no. BHM 8906 without taking any permission from the Management. This shows your gross negligence and ulterior motive for pilferage of diesel from the diesel tank". Notice adds that "if the above charges are proved, they would constitute acts subversive of discipline and also constitute misconduct under Clause 17(1) - (a), (f) and (i) of the aforesaid standing order". The Disciplinary Inquiry was conducted giving opportunity to the petitioner to participate. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer recorded his finding that charge against the petitioner was proved. Upon perusing the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show -cause notice along with a copy of the Inquiry Report to the petitioner to explain against the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted his explanation, disputing the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order, terminated the service of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal, was also rejected by the Appellate Authority by the impugned Appellate Order.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned orders primarily on the following grounds: I. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and are contrary to the evidences on record. II. Even otherwise, evidences adduced at the inquiry, do not confirm that the petitioner was actually found to have changed the fuel tank or pilfered any quantity of diesel from the tank. III. The punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, is extreme and not commensurate with the charges levelled against him. ;