( 1 ) BY this Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the Petitioner has taken exception to the action of the first respondent of removing him from service.

( 2 ) WITH a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties it will be necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. The Petitioner joined the employment of the first Respondent as a Compounder in October 1959. Later on the Petitioner was promoted as Store Keeper. His promotion to the post of Store Keeper was confirmed on 3rd november 1968 in the pay scale of Rs. 150-320. With effect from 1st April 1978, the Petitioner was upgraded as Office Assistant in the scale of Rs. 425-800. The Petitioner continued to work in the hospital of the first Respondent-Indian Institute of Technology. Some time in the month of April 1981, the Petitioner was transferred from the hospital to the Central Stores of the first respondent. The Petitioner handed over charge on 18th June 1981. The Disciplinary proceeding was commenced against the Petitioner by serving memorandum dated 23rd November 1983 along with statement of Articles of charge, Statement of Imputations of misconduct and list of documents on the basis of which Articles of charge were sought to be proved. The Petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 26th December 1983. An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the first Respondent for holding enquiry. The enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 12th October 1990. The enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges against the Petitioner were established. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, notice dated 19th April 1991 was issued to the Petitioner. In the said notice it was stated that the board of the first Respondent has accepted the report of the Enquiry officer and has proposed to impose following penalties: a) Recovery of Rs. 1,44,545. 59 being the total loss caused to the first Respondent on account of default by the Petitioner. b) Removal from service. By the said notice the Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the proposed penalties should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 29th April 1991 to the show cause notice. The first Respondent by a Memorandum dated 22nd July 1991 informed the Petitioner that the Board of the first respondent has resolved to impose the following penalties on the petitioner : 1) Recovery of sum of Rs. 1,44,545. 59 2) The Petitioner shall be removed from service of the first Respondent with effect from afternoon of the 22nd July 1991.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner preferred an Appeal against the order of imposing penalty. By communication dated 29th March 1993, the petitioner was communicated the decision of the Appellate authority. By the said decision, penalty of removal from service was upheld. However, the amount of recovery was reduced to one years basic pay in terms of Government of India decision 27 (c) given below Rule 11 of the C. C. S. (CCA) Rules, 1965. The challenge in this Petition is to the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of the Appellate Authority.

( 4 ) SHRI Vashi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the employer i. e. the first Respondent failed to adduce any evidence before the Enquiry Officer and without there being any evidence led before the employer, the Petitioner was forced to lead evidence. He submitted that as the charges against the petitioner are mainly about misappropriation, in absence of any evidence led by the employer, said charges cannot be accepted as proved by any stretch of imagination especially when no evidence was adduced by the employer. He placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (4) Mh. L. J. page no. 960 (Union of India Vs. C. M. Amrute), in support of his contention. He also placed reliance on decision of Rajasthan High court reported in AIR 1963 Rajasthan 57 (Ramlal Vs. Union of india and another ). Relying on the dec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document