MADAN MOHAN ROUT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority in Annexure -9, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority under Annexure -10 and confirmed by the revisional authority, [Annexure -1 (a)]. After stating details of charge, findings, submissions it is held :

(2.) WE have perused the enquiry report, which has been filed as Annexure -8. The Enquiry Officer analysing the evidence recorded a finding that the delinquent was not involved in the theft. For the purpose of the said conclusion he has taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses and their inherent contradictions. We have noticed that the disciplinary authority has recorded a different opinion as far as the theft part is concerned. To justify his difference he has relied on the deposition of the delinquent and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who have categorically stated that they had seen the delinquent removing scrap aluminium through a drain. The disciplinary authority had analysed all the materials on record and rejected the defence plea that the delinquent employee was only trying to restore the Articles into the general store when he was intercepted. This aspect has been disbelieved by the disciplinary authority and for the said conclusion he has referred to the statements made by PWs 1 and 2. The appellate authority has, in his own way, dealt with the contention raised by the petitioner. The revisional authority has passed an order observing that the charges framed against the delinquent has been clearly proved and the punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

(3.) SRI Patnaik has addressed us with regard to the quantum of punishment. He has submitted with lucidity to arouse our mercy and discretion. He has simultaneously reminded us our jurisdiction to do complete justice. We are conscious that this Court can do complete justice, but the case must so deserve. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the petitioner was working as a Security Guard. On the proven facts, plain as day, the petitioner was instrumental in removal of some aluminium. His explanation has been rejected. He was the person to guard but not to steal. He was the person to take care not to clandestinely throw away. He was the person who was required to maintain the sanctity of his post and not to sacrifice at the altar of his avarice.