HARISH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of the Super Bazar Cooperative Store Limited preferred this petition for quashing the order dated 30 th December, 1993 of the General Manager of the respondent No.2/Super Bazar Cooperative Store Ltd. acting as the disciplinary authority. The said order was made pursuant to an inquiry held on the charge against the petitioner of stock shortages and misappropriation of goods of Super Bazar. Vide the impugned order, on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge and a penalty of reduction in his grade by two stages with cumulative effect and of recovery of stock shortages of Rs.39,314.91 was imposed on the petitioner. The said amount was ordered to be recovered by deduction of Rs. 300/- per month from the emoluments payable to the petitioner. The petitioner in the writ petition has also sought the relief of directing the respondent No.2/Super Bazar to return the amounts so deducted from the salary of the petitioner since the month of January, 1994. The writ petition was accompanied with an application for stay of operation of the said order but no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner, though Rule in the writ petition was issued on 23rd April, 1997. The counsel for the petitioner states that the entire sum so stands recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner has since also attained the age of superannuation.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner had besides the present writ petition also preferred a departmental appeal against the order impugned in this petition. The said appeal was dismissed on 10th August, 1994, shortly after the institution of the present petition. Though the petitioner has thereafter amended the writ petition but no challenge in the amended petition also was made to the order of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority inter alia by pleading that though another person also was chargesheeted alongwith him but no inquiry was held against him; that though in the earlier memorandum of chargesheet his liability was shown to be of Rs.36,308/- only, in the subsequent chargesheet the same was increased to Rs.39,314.91 without any reason whatsoever; that he was not responsible for stock shortages; that there was no proper evidence against him; that he was kept under suspension without any show cause notice though Rule 72(1) of the Service & Conduct Rules provide that reasons for suspension should be supplied but no reasons were supplied to him; that the Inquiry Officer has not considered the evidence led by the petitioner and held him liable without any basis whatsoever. In the amended petition another ground of the Inquiry Officer having wrongly placed the onus on the petitioner to prove his innocence has also been taken.