SOMANATH MOHANTY Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appointed as a Helper by the Steel Authority of India (Rourkela Steel Plant) in December, 195) and promoted as Fitter in the By -products Branch in January, 1970, the petitioner faced a disciplinary proceeding being charged, as per Annexure -2, with having received overpayments of wages amounting to Rs. 5,006.51 paise for the period from January 1979 to January 1980 and for having failed to bring the overpayments to the notice of the department with a view to appropriating the amounts overpaid which would amount to misconduct in accordance with Clause 28 of the Standing Orders. The petitioner showed cause stating to have overdrawn the amounts, but had pleaded that this act was not owing to any mistake on his part and he had no intention to misappropriate the same and had not brought it to the notice of the department due to his ignorance. He had further stated that he had no objection if the overpayments drawn by him were deducted from his monthly wages in easy installments The matter was enquired into and the Enquiry Committee, as per Annexure -10, found the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service as per the order dated March 18/22, 1983 vide Annexure -11. The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed against the impugned order of punishment. His appeal was dismissed as per Annexure -13 The petitioner has moved this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned order of punishment and the order passed by the appellate authority as being unfounded, illegal and unconstitutional.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit put in by the opposite parties, it has been averred that the petitioner had admitted the charges framed against him. He had worked against the interest of the (Company which would amount to misconduct under Clauses 27 and 28 of the Standing Orders, and according to the case of the opposite parties, the petitioner also was guilty of dishonesty in connection with the Company's property which would amount to misconduct under Clauses 28 (ii) of the Standing Orders. It has been stated by the opposite parties that a part of the sum overdrawn had been recovered from the wages of the petitioner.

(3.) WHILE considering an application under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not to correct mere errors of facts by examining and re -appreciating the materials. Concurrent findings of competent authorities giving cogent reasons are not open to challenge unless the findings are perverse and based on no materials. The quantum of punishment is not ordinarily to be gone into, but if there is no justification for the punishment imposed, appropriate relief can be granted by the High Court.