9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of ₹ 2675/- as per his undertaking hence Shri Jadhao stands responsible for non recovery of net amount of ₹ 17,263.59. For the amount of ₹ 2437/- towards shortage of F/seed Shri Jadhao as well as Shri Gorthekar stands responsible. (2) Shri Jadhao cannot be held responsible totally for late submission of record since the persons involved in distribution of F/seeds etc. was absconding hence some time was required to collect the information from the seed growers. Also the charge of non recovery of outstanding amount of ₹ 35,190/- from the seed growers in absence of the record cannot be proved. (3) It cannot be proved that the amount paid to Shri Jadhao by the seed growers or their representatives has not deposited by him. However, it is concluded that the entire mesh has been created on account of negligence on the part of Shri Jadhao. (4) It is proved beyond doubt that an amount of ₹ 26104/- collected from the seed growers have been misappropriated by Shri Jadhao. (5) Since the 22 bags of Hy. Cotton DCH-32 have been traced out the charge of misappropriation of this stock by Shri Jadhao cannot be proved. (6) It is also conclude ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, I am cancelling previous Notice No. Mahabeej/Admn.,94/10893 dated 2.2.94 and I have decided that Shri Hariprasad Drupadrao Jadhav, Asst. Area Officer is a person not worth keeping in the service. And therefore, the undersigned has imposed dismissal from service on him. Similarly, due to your misappropriation the Corporation has a loss of ₹ 15234/- which is proposed to be recovered from you. The Corporation has reserved its right to recover the said amount from you through civil suit. Also the Corporation has reserved its right to file criminal case against you for the misappropriation of Corporation funds. (5) - Shri Hariprasad Drupadrao Jadhav is given an opportunity through this memorandum to formally submit his reply to the proposal of disciplinary action to be taken against him. However, such formal reply can be made based on the evidence submitted by him during the departmental enquiry. Any formal reply against the proposed disciplinary action desired by him should be in writing which can be considered by the undersigned. The formal reply should reach the undersigned within fifteen days from receipt of this memorandum. The respondent filed his show cause in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry Authority could not thus change his mind and to take different views at different times. It was held: It has come on record that amount of defalcation of ₹ 17,263.50 was to be recovered from the petitioner by way of punishment. It has also come on record that, in the meantime, respondents did file civil suit for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. The matter was amicably settled between the parties and the respondents, thereafter, and, to that extent, the matter was compromised between the parties, out of the court. Taking into consideration all the circumstances appearing in this case, in their sequence, it appears that, the punishment of withholding two increments of pay, permanently, as proposed in the show cause notice (Exh E), is just and proper. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, such punishment, which was proposed by the enquiry officer, of withholding two increments of pay, permanently, should be accepted and confirmed. Mr. Uday Kumar Sagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in assailing the judgment of the High Court submitted that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the second show cause notice on the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount, preparation of false documents as also misappropriation of 22 bags of DCH 32 cotton seeds. It has also been proved that he has violated instructions for distribution of seeds apart from remaining absent from work. It is not a case, with respect to the High Court, where the disciplinary authority had differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The question of differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority would arise only when the delinquent officer is exonerated either wholly or in part of the charges levelled against him whereas the disciplinary authority forms a different opinion. Most of the charges have been found proved and the Disciplinary Authority to that extent did not differ with the report of the Enquiry Officer. So far as the quantum of punishment proposed by the Enquiry Officer is concerned, if in terms of the rules, he had no authority to do so, the Managing Director was entitled to apply his own mind and could come to a conclusion as regard the quantum of punishment which should be imposed on the delinquent officer. He in that view of the matter was not obligated to assign any far less sufficient and cogent reason a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no jurisdiction in that behalf. See M.Ahammedkutty Haji V. Tahsildar, Kozhikode, Kerala Ors. [(2005) 3 SCC 351]. Mistake furthermore, may either be of law or fact. By reason of mistake on the part of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent could not have been inflicted with a minor penalty although he deserved a major penalty. If in law the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon a delinquent officer is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority, unless otherwise delegated to any other authority, he alone could exercise the said jurisdiction and determine the same having regard the nature and guilty of the misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer as the Enquiry Officer or any other authority had no jurisdiction in relation thereto. The matter might have been different if prior to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against the 1st respondent, no opportunity of hearing had been given to him. Admittedly the second show cause notice was issued to him and he showed cause. It is also not contended that the order passed by the disciplinary authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. The principles of natural justice admittedly have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
