The court emphasized the importance of proving charges in a disciplinary enquiry and the need for a joint enquiry when multiple employees are involved in the alleged misconduct.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 29/6/2011 (Annexure-D), passed by respondent No.2 imposing the punishment of withholding increment of the petitioner for two years.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that:

2.1. Respondent No.1 had initiated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, who is working as Senior Assistant, O and M Sec., Maski, by framing charges alleging that, the petitioner while working as Assistant Accounts Officer (Internal Audit) with the respondent - Corporation, transferred and credited the amount in ledger from one RR No. to another RR No. and responsible for loss of Rs.51, 344.00 in respect of 35 cases as per the show cause notice dtd. 26/8/2010 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). The petitioner replied to the same by way of Annexure-D.

2.2. Having not satisfied with the reply made by the petitioner, the respondent - Corporation conducted enquiry and found the petitioner guilty. 2.3. Pursuant to the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority as per order dtd. 22/9/2010, imposed punishment as per Annexure-C to the writ petition.

2.4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, after considering the material on record, partly confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority as per the order dtd. 29/6/2011.

2.5. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner has presented this writ petition.

3. Heard Smt. Kavitha Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing for Sri. Arun L. Neelopant for the petitioner and Sri. B. S. Kamate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

4. Smt. Kavitha Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority have considered the report of the enquiry in the right perspective and further the imposition of punishment of withholding the increment for a period of two years is harsh and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. B. S. Kamate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation argued that, both the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have recorded findings by looking into the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and opined that the petitioner ought to have been vigilant and verified the day to day transactions, which caused financial loss to the respondent-Corporation. He further contended that, in view of the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, and as there is no violation of the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent- Corporation initiated Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner as per the charges set out at Annexure-A to the writ petition. Details of the charges reads as under:

1. Transferring and credited of amount in ledger from one RR.No. Another RR.No. 2. Transfer of Mise deposit amount to different RR.Nos. 3. Transfer of credit balance to different RR.Nos. 4. Adjustment of vigilance/MT BBC to future bills of the RR.No. 5. Responsible or loss of Rs.51, 344.00 in respect of 35 cases.

7. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner/delinquent officer has filed 4 documents in support of the charges and two witnesses were examined on his behalf. Respondent-Corporation has produced 7 documents in their defence. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the material on record, by its report held that the petitioner has committed misconduct. Thereafter, opportunity was extended to the petitioner to file reply.

8. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the enquiry report as well as the reply made by the petitioner, arrived at a conclusion to impose four penalties as set out in the impugned order dtd. 22/9/20