2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).

Heard the Advocates for parties and perused the record.

2. Appellant was Commercial Assistant when the respondents suspended him from duty on 2-7-1999 and after suspension he was charge-sheeted on 4-4-2000 for gross misconduct alleging that he has misappropriated the Government cash amounting to Rs.2,69,972 for the period from 5-3-1999 to 24-5-1999. The Appellant requested the Respondents to supply the required information to enable him to submit his defence but the respondents did not supply the relevant documents and also no personal hearing was given to defend his case. The Respondents -started recovery of loss from his, pension and allowances in the arbitrary manner from June, 2001. The respondents without observing the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 dismissed him from the Respondent-Organization vide order dated 9-8-2001. The appellant filed departmental appeal dated 19-8-2001 but the Respondents directed him to appear for enquiry in the matter. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal from service preferred this appeal under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to set aside the order of dismissal and direct the Respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with full back-benefits.

3. The respondents filed Parawise Comments stating therein that the Appellant did not remit the station earning for the period from 5-3-1999 to 24-5-1999. As such, he was taken up under the rules. In fact the Appellant used to prepare C.R. Note and signed the same himself instead of Station Master who was In charge of the Station and thus the Appellant was dealing the entire cash work with himself by showing bogus draft Nos. The criminal case is also pending in the Court of Special Judge (Central) Hyderabad. The respondents stated that Appellant was supplied all the material documents and was provided full opportunity of defence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record.

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Charge-sheet has not been issued according to the requirement of rule 6(1) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973. He has contended that the Appellant has been dismissed from service without getting any explanation and affording a reasonable opportunity of showing cause and also an adequate opportunity of defence, hence the dismissal order is illegal, void, inoperative and without jurisdiction. He has further contended that no enquiry after the service of the Charge-sheet was held in spite of appointment of Enquiry Officer, hence dismissal order is illegal and void. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that no personal hearing was given to the appellant by the respondents before passing the dismissal order and appellant has been condemned unheard. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Respondents have imposed major penalty of removal from service without holding any enquiry into the serious allegations of fact which were denied by such employers. He has further contended that no major penalty could be imposed against an employee without holding regular enquiry into the serious allegations of the fact which were denied by such employee and, the same needed to be proved by recording of evidence through regular enquiry.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Appellant used C.R. note and signed the same himself instead of Station Master who was Incharge of the station and was dealing entire cash work with himself by showing bogus draft numbers and the criminal case was also lodged against him. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that appellant was supplied all the material documents required for submission of benefits. He has further contended that the appellant was provided full opportunity of defence and the respondent was fully competent to pass such order of his dismissal from service with recovery of misappropriated amount to the tune of Rs.2;61,

972. He has further contended that the enquiry was conducted but the appellant failed to appear and remained absent.

7. We have observed that the respondents have imposed major penalty of removal from service without holding any enquiry, into the serious allegations of fact which were denied by such employee. The apex Court has consistently held in a number of identical cases that no major penalty could be imposed against an employee without holding regular enquiry into the serious allegations of fact which were denied by such employee and the same needed to be proved by recording of evidence through regular enquiry providing the employee full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to bring on record his defence and thereafter also provide opportunity of personal hearing. That having not been done, the respondents cannot be allowed to contend that the allegations against the appellant have been proved.

8. In view of the matter, we have no hesitation in accepting the appeal; We accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service. The respondents are directed to conduct de novo enquiry after providing full opportunity of defence to the appellant. The payment to back-benefits will depend upon the result of inquiry which would be initiated and completed within a period of four months from passing of this judgment. No order as to cost.

9. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters under registered cover under rule 21, of Service Tribunal Procedure Rules. 1974. H.B.T./7/FST?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.