AJIT KUMAR GHANTY Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a surprise checking it was found that the writ petitioner while working as Cash Clerk had done several irregularities in disbursement of various payment including L.T.C. payment to the co-workers belonging to the respondent company. There had been a preliminary investigation wherefrom it appears that the petitioner put his thumb impression as and by way of purported receipt of money by the fellow workers and thereby committed illegalities with mala fide intention to defraud the co- workers. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally and suffered the order of dismissal from service.

(2.) Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay (Mr. Kishore Dutta appearing with him) learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the enquiry report which was made basis of the final order was perverse in view of wrong appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

(3.) After elaborate argument Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the said enquiry report. According to him when there had been a distinctive charge of defrauding the co-workers, out of 8 persons only 2 of them were produced by the prosecution. The said two workers alleged that they got lesser payment. Such evidence of the said workers were not backed up by any evidence including pay cards. Hence, the charge of defrauding the co-workers was not proved. On the issue of thumb impression Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned counsel, submits that since there had been a heavy rush and since the petitioner was not a regular employee of the Cash Department, there might have been some irregularities. According to him, irregularities, if any, without any proper evidence of fraud does not warrant an order of dismissal from service and as such the punishment so awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges brought and proved against the writ petitioner.