NAROTTAM PATI Vs. NORTH EASTERN SUPPLY COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Jaipur Road Electrical Division under the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board. His services AFR were placed under North Electrical Supply Company of Orissa Limited (hereinafter referred to 'NESCO'). While the petitioner was working as a Clerk (A) General Cashier, a proceeding was initiated against him by opposite party no.1, on the basis of an interim special audit report wherein it was alleged that during his incumbency as Revenue Cashier at Jaipur Road Electrical division, he had committed some financial and procedural irregularities, which lead to misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 8,63,409.65. As the petitioner failed to take all possible measures to ensure and protect the interest of the company in due discharge of his duties and caused a pecuniary loss to the company, on the ground of gross negligence and misconduct in duties, he was called upon to submit his written statement of defence within seven days as to why the aforesaid amount shall not be recovered from him.

(2.) On receipt of the said charges, the petitioner filed an application to supply certain documents on the basis of which allegations were made, but the same were not supplied to him. Consequentially he submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations made against him. After filing of show cause/written statement of defence, an additional charge was framed on 11.03.2004 alleging that an amount of Rs. 2,41,165.40 collected towards revenue was misappropriated. Consequentially, he submitted an additional reply on 18.03.2004.

(3.) Having not satisfied with the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner on both the charges, an enquiry officer was appointed on 18.02004. The petitioner objected to the appointment of Sri D. Mukhapadhaya Deputy Manager (Finance) as Enquiry Officer on the ground that he belonged to Finance Wings and the departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of the audit report prepared by Deputy General Manager(Finance). In spite of the objection being raised, no action was taken. Pursuant to notice issued by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner appeared before him. Though he objected the continuance of Enquiry Officer in writing by letter dated 12.05.2004, both Marshaling Officer and Enquiry Officer compelled the petitioner to concede and admit the charges. The same was objected to by the petitioner in his representation dated 24.05.2004.