D J WARKARI Vs. K V KARANJKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is directed against an order of dismissal made by the Chief Engineer-IV dated 22nd September, 1975 holding that the two charges, namely, of theft and act of disloyalty to the Board were proved against him. In the view which we are taking in this petition, it is not necessary for us to go into the details regarding the material on which the charges were framed. Briefly stated, however, in the domestic enquiry the charges against the petitioner were that on 18-12-47 when the petitioner was working as Head Foreman at the Nasik Thermal Power Station and he was searched at the gate, three ball-bearings were recovered from his pocket. Two charges, therefore, came to be framed against him, the first being one of theft and the second being act of disloyalty. The competent authority for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner under the Employees' Service Regulations of the Electricity Board, was the Chief Engineer Inquiry into the charges was made by the enquiry officer who was Assistant Personnel Officer of the Board. Before the enquiry officer, the case of the petitioner was that the bearings were planted in the coat of the petitioner by one Her who was a subordinate, when Aher managed to send the petitioner out of the workshop to his superior officer, Shri Sainath. At that time, according to the petitioner, the coat was hung on his chair, and after having planted the bearings in the coat, Aher telephoned to another superior officer, Mr. Bhadabhade informing him of the theft. In short, the petitioner denied that he had committed any theft and his case was that the bearings were planted. It could not be disputed that the bearings wore recovered from the coat of the petitioner when he was searched.

(2.) The enquiry officer, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the charge of theft as levelled against the petitioner was not proved and, therefore, charge No. 1 was not proved. He also found that the petitioner has not given any explanation as to how the bearings were found in his pocket. So far as the charge No. 2 is concerned, the enquiry officer seems to have taken the view that the petitioner has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why he had indented those bearings without the knowledge of the superior officer and brought the bearings from the Major Stores, Nasik when the same size and type of bearings. 100 in number, were given to the petitioner by his superior officer, Sainath on 30-9-74. This was considered as an act of disloyalty and charge No. 2 was, therefore, held to be proved.

(3.) The competent authority did not agree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. He independently reached the conclusion that the story of planting had to be discarded and on evidence, the charge of theft was established. If the charge of theft was established, then, according to the competent authority, the charge of disloyalty to the Board could also stand proved as a natural corollary. With his own findings recorded in the show cause notice, the competent authority issued a notice to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice. On 22-9-1975, the competent authority made the order of dismissal stating that the petitioner could not put forward any convincing reason so as to disprove the charges levelled against him. The charges levelled were stated to be grave and serious and according to the competent authority, warranted a punishment of dismissal in respect of each charge. This order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. However, taking recourse to the remedy by way of an appeal which lay to the Chairman of the Board, it appears that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was permitted to file the appeal which came to be decided by the Chairman on 17-6-76. The Chairman by his order which is produced by the Board alongwith the return, has held that he did not see any reason to reverse the decision of the competent authority. The present petition thus challenges not only the original order of dismissal but also the appellate order.