2015 (10) TMI 2726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us, he retired as an Assistant Chief Accounts Officer (ACAO) on 31.7.2008. Prior to the date of retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was allowed to retire on superannuation on 31.7.2008. Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the charge that during the period from July 2007 to June 2008, he failed to ensure the amounts deducted from the salary of the Staff of Air Cargo Complex Division towards LIC premium/Recovery Deposit/Maintenance Charges/ Water Charges/Association Subscription remitted towards the concerned head. One Mr. V.L. Simon - the Administrative Officer (A.O.), who was handling the cash, also faced the enquiry independently. The petitioner as well as said Simon were jointly and severally accountabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... staff, verify the daily balance, sign on the Registers, physically verify the cash and keep it in his safe custody. The contention of the petitioner is that Mr. Simon was an administrative Officer of his equivalent rank. He was handling the cash and he was solely responsible for the loss, was not accepted by both the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. By passing the detailed order, the Disciplinary Authority decided that the pension of the petitioner be reduced to the level of minimum admissible Pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules and further that 50% of the misappropriated amount be recovered from his gratuity, if not already recovered. Further the balance amount of his gratuity may be released, if otherwise not required. 3. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lary of the staff not verified the daily balance; not recovered cash and as such he did not keep the cash in safe custody on day to day basis, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly concluded that the petitioner is liable for punishment as imposed by it. The Disciplinary Authority has also concluded that Simon being the Cashier, he was also jointly responsible, but the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner is on the higher side as compared to Simon's misconduct. Since, we find that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is just and proper and as the said order is rightly confirmed by the central Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.
.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X