PRASANNA KUMAR PANDA Vs. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has challenged the whimsical, arbitrary and illegal action alleged to have been meted out by the opp. parties.

(2.) PETITIONER joined in service as Clerk 'A' under the Orissa State Electricity Board. Immediately after formation of CESCO, the service of the petitioner was transferred to their control and he was treated to be an employee of CESCO for all purposes. It is alleged that while the petitioner was functioning as cashier in the office of Executive Engineer Electrical Division No. I, Kendrapara, there was a short fall of an amount of Rs. 67,219,35 P. from the cash. Therefore, a report was lodged in Kendrapara Police Station against the petitioner under Section 409, IPC, which was registered as G.R. Case No. 1219 of 1992. However, the case ended in acquittal of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority appears to have simultaneously initiated a departmental proceeding for negligence in duty. The departmental proceeding could not be completed in time. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in this Court in OJC No. 8424 of 2001 in which the opp. party No. 1 was directed to complete the proceeding prior to superannuation of the petitioner. Thus the disciplinary authority in hot haste without following the normal rules and procedures completed the departmental proceeding by directing the suspension period as such and further two increments with cumulative effect were stopped. After the punishment was imposed the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, but it did not yield any better result. The appellate authority while affirming the punishment further held that the punishment being disproportionate directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 33,609.70 P. being 50 of the amount short fall. Thus the petitioner challenged the punishment imposed against him by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the opp. parties while repelling the petitioner's contention has submitted that there was a short fall of Rs. 67,219.35 P. which was kept with the petitioner. The said amount was kept in the inner chamber of an iron safe with double lock system, one of such keys was always remaining with the petitioner and the other with the Revenue Divisional Accountant. The departmental proceeding was not only initiated against the petitioner but also against the Revenue Divisional Accountant. After an elaborate enquiry in the departmental proceeding the petitioner was held responsible for having acted in a careless and reckless manner resulting in loss of revenue of the opp. parties. Since it was in double lock, the petitioner as well as the Divisional Accountant were responsible for the financial loss occurred to the opp. parties.