DEVI SINGH Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Singhvi, for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never confessed his guilt of misappropriating the amount of Rs. 41,600/-. He submitted that the disciplinary authority committed an error in the order of termination dated 27.5.1985 (Annex, 7) by stating that the delinquent himself has confessed that he misappropriated the amount and he has also deposited in all Rs. 7809/-. Therefore reply was not accepted by the disciplinary authority.

(2.) It appears that after the enquiry, the delinquent contested the enquiry and submitted his reply that he had not misappropriated any amount, but lateron he himself admitted his guilt before the disciplinary authority orally as well as in writing. The last confession was in writing by the delinquent himself after submitting his reply to the notice dated 22. 5. 1985 (Annex. R/13) produced alongwith the reply filed by the respondent. It is only thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of dismissal on 27.5.1985 (Annex. 7) on the admission of the petitioner. From the order dated 2.7.1986 (Annex. 9) it has become clear that the delinquent was given full opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry. His statements were recorded on different dates which have were there in the files (some of them have been annexed alongwith the reply affidavit by the respondents). The appellate authority found that the delinquent himself has not only admitted in his statement that he has misappropriated the money, but he had also deposited some of the amount, which he had misappropriated. Thus, it was a clear admission of the part of the delinquent that he had. In any case, temporarily misappropriated some amount. It has also been stated in the appellate order that he had asked for sometime to deposit the amount. Thus, it is clear that no error was committed in passing the impugned order of termination.

(3.) It appears that the delinquent had challenged the impugned order of termination before the appellate authority by way appeal only when the maximum punishment was imposed against him and he was removed from service and in appeal he came out with a case that he never confessed his guilt. However, he suppressed the fact that he himself confessed about the misappropriation. It also appears that with a view to safeguard from criminal prosecution he might have pleaded mercy with folded hands, but the authorities have not acceded to his request and passed the maximum order of penalty. Mr. Singhvi tried to submit that the punishment is very harsh and by passing the impugned order of termination not only he has suffered but his entire family consisting of four children and wife have also made to suffer. He, therefore, submitted that when the petitioner has admitted his guilt, the authorities should have taken lenient view of the matter while imposing punish- ment. He submitted that the penalty of dismissal is highly disproportionate. In cases of misappropriation, embezzlement, corruption, when the disciplinary authority is satisfied that the misconduct is proved, may be upon the admission of the delinquent, then also the only proper punishment, in my view, is of dismissal. Any public servant who misappropriated the amount cannot be retained in service, therefore, on the facts of this case it cannot be said that the punishment was highly disproportionate which calls for interference by this Court in this writ petition.