B DEVADAS Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in imposing on him the punishment of removal from service, by proceedings dated 29.06.1999/02.07.1999 as confirmed in appeal by order dated 17.09.1999 and in revision by order dated 12.10.1999, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the respondent corporation as a Junior Medical Officer in January, 1980. He was promoted as a Medical Officer on 01.08.1983, and as a Senior Medical Officer on 07.01.1988. He was promoted as Deputy Chief Medical Officer on 08.01.1994 in which post he continued till he was removed from service. The petitioner was issued charge memo dated 25.11.1988 for having claimed wrong T.A. bills. The petitioner admitted his guilt, and requested that he be pardoned. It is his grievance that, instead of taking a lenient view, an enquiry officer was appointed vide proceedings dated 28.12.1998; an enquiry was held on 14.01.1999; and, even in the enquiry, he admitted his guilt. The enquiry officer, thereafter, submitted his report on 29.01.1999. A show cause notice dated 17.03.1999 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be imposed the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner, in his reply thereto, requested that a sympathetic view be taken. However, without taking into account his request, the respondent removed the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 29.06.1999 which, as noted hereinabove, was confirmed in appeal and then in revision. The petitioner would refer to another disciplinary proceedings, in the very same respondent organization, wherein certain officers, who faced vigilance enquiries and CBI cases, were let off with a minor penalty even after the charges leveled against them were held proved. He would refer to the names of three such officers, whose punishment details shall be referred to hereinafter.

(2.) Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, would question the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner of removal from service on the following grounds: (1) the respondent had discriminated between the petitioner and the other three officers; (2) while the misconduct committed by the petitioner was far less serious than those committed by the other officers, they were let off with merely a censure/minor penalty whereas the petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from service; (3) the respondent had discriminated against the petitioner in the nature of punishment imposed on him; and (4) the respondent had also not acted fairly in imposing a more severe punishment on the petitioner, while letting the other three officers off with a lighter penalty.

(3.) The charge which the petitioner was found guilty of, as is evident from the material placed before this Court, is that he had submitted fraudulent travel allowance claims during the period April, 1996 to July, 1998 for Rs. 64,717/-. The petitioner admitted his guilt in submitting such fraudulent money claims. The charge held established against the petitioner, in effect, was that he had falsely claimed and received money from the Corporation, for expenses which he did not incur, which is undoubtedly a grave and serious act of misconduct.