(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) A chargesheet was issued against the petitioner and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The chargesheet contained as many as eight charges. For the self same charge a first information report was filed. It does not appear that the said first information report has resuited in filing of a chargesheet before any criminal court. The petitioner gave a reply to the chargesheet.
(3.) INASMUCH as some of those charges were then under investigation in terms of the first information report, the Enquiry Officer did not conclude them and in relation to the remaining charges exonerated the petitioner. On the basis of this opinion of the Enquiry Officer which has got two parts, namely, the part, which deals with the matters pertaining to forgery of documents and putting or signatures in the bills etc, then under investigation in terms of the first information report, was left open and had not been concluded and the other part in respect of those charges where no investigation was required and the defence was that the petitioner was not obliged to maintain the concerned records, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was that the petitioner stands exonerated of those charges. On the basis of this enquiry report, no prudent person under no circumstances could punish the petitioner but, however, unfortunately without even bothering to consider the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority by an order dated 15th January, 2004 punished the petitioner by dismissal, after accepting the enquiry report in toto, and at the same time ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled to anything more than subsistence allowance during the period he remained under suspension until his termination.