In departmental enquiries, documents cannot sustain guilt without witnesses proving contents and authenticity; oral evidence must establish bribe demand and acceptance by charged officer, mere recovery inadequate if unlinked to his demand.

JUDGMENT :

Anil S. Kilor, J.

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Manager (Operation) was allegedly caught red-handed for accepting the illegal gratification, by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officials. Whereupon, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 03/03/2014 issued by the respondent No.4. The same was upheld by the appellate Authority vide order dated 09/01/2015. Thus, in the present writ petition, the orders dated 03/03/2014 and 09/01/2015 as well as the enquiry report, are under challenge.

Brief facts of the present case are as under :

4. The petitioner entered into service of the respondent No.2 as Typist-Clerk. He was promoted up-to the post of Assistant Manager (Operation). While working as Assistant Manager (Operation), it is alleged that on 19/08/2010 Shri D.T.Welturkar, along with the petitioner, during inspection detected a tampering in the locking system of Tank Truck No. MH-31/AP-4771, which was loaded for MSRTC, Gadchiroli. As per the guidelines of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., tampering with standard fittings of the tank truck attracts penalty of blacklisting for two years. Thus, operations of the above referred truck was stopped under oral instructions. It is further alleged that on 28/08/2010 the petitioner demanded illegal gratification from Shri Sunil Chopde, a contractor of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on behalf of Shri D.T.Welturkar for allowing the operation of the said tank truck. After negotiations the amount was reduced to Rs.15,000/-.

5. Shri Sunil Chopde thereupon lodged a written complaint on 30/08/2010 with Superintendent of Police, CBI (ACB), Nagpur against Shri D.T.Welturkar and the petitioner. Thereafter a trap was laid by the CBI wherein, the petitioner alleged to have caught red-handed while accepting Rs.15,000/- as bribe amount.

6. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, in which the Disciplinary Authority examined three witnesses, whereas the petitioner in defence examined two witnesses.

7. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner got superannuated on 30/11/2013.

8. Thereafter, on 09/01/2014 the respondent No.5-Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereupon, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner on 24/01/2014.

9. The Disciplinary Authority, after accepting the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and not finding the reply of the petitioner satisfactory, issued impugned order dated 03/03/2014, dismissing the petitioner.

10. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 09/01/2015. Hence, this petition.

11. Shri Wahane, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the departmental proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority failed to prove demand and unless it is established the charges of accepting the bribe, as levelled against the petitioner, cannot be said to be proved. Thus, the punishment of dismissal is unwarranted and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

1