VENKANNA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was employed with the respondents. He has retired as an Accounts Officer on 31.12.2007. Due to certain acts of misconduct, articles of charge was issued to him. He submitted his reply. Being dissatisfied with the same, an enquiry was ordered. He participated in the enquiry. The charges were held proved. He was imposed with the punishment of withholding of two annual increments permanently. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal. The appeal was rejected. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. That the Authorities failed to consider the material and evidence on record. That there is no financial loss to the respondents. The charges have been wrongly held to be proved. Even otherwise the punishment which is imposed on him is far too excessive. Hence, while placing reliance on the material on record, he pleads that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) HEARD learned counsels. Six charges were levelled against the petitioner. They are to the extent of arranging refund of EMD/FSD in respect of 34 bills without obtaining the satisfactory reports from the concerned field staff and also non -mentioning the name of the work, the date of completion and receipt number etc. and for arranging payment without obtaining the funds from the Corporate Office. Charge No. 2 is with reference to 41 bills, charge No. 3 is with reference to 15 bills, charge No. 4 is with reference to 8 bills, charge No. 5 is with reference to 5 bills and charge No. 6 is with reference to 124 bills. The management in all examined three witnesses and marked 12 documents. The petitioner was also examined and he marked 9 documents. A detailed enquiry was held. The charges were held to be proved. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.