Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the orders of the departmental authorities; of the disciplinary authority dated 29.5.2012 and the appellate authority dated 14.2.2013; imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of removal from services.

2. On account of misappropriation of money alleged against the petitioner and hence of corruption, charge-sheet dated 9.8.2010 was issued to the petitioner. There were three charges against the petitioner. Charge No. I pertained to petitioner by means of being co-signatory on 16 cheques withdrawing amounts totaling to Rs. 1,50,500/- which were not accounted for in the records. Charge No. II pertained to not showing of the account books to the auditors, and which charge I need not go into detail because enquiry officer has not found this charge established against the petitioner. Charge No. III pertained to petitioner wrongly utilizing/misappropriating an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in cash by withdrawing the same from the saving bank account in Syndicate Bank, Pusa Road Branch, New Delhi and then refunding the same only when demanded. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges against the petitioner, and after conducting proceedings the enquiry officer gave his report dated 8.2.2012 holding charges I and III as proved against the petitioner. Disciplinary authority thereafter passed a detailed penalty order dated 29.5.2012 imposing the punishment of removal from services upon the petitioner. This order has been upheld by the appellate authority, again by a detailed speaking order, on 4.12.2013.

3. Before adverting to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary at this stage to set out the scope of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which challenges the orders passed by the departmental authorities. It is settled law that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an Appellate Court to re-apprise the findings of facts and conclusions of the departmental authorities. This Court can only interfere if the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities are perverse or violative of the principles of natural justice or violative of the provisions of the rules of the organization/law. It may also be stated that a case before the departmental authorities is proved like in a civil case on preponderance of probabilities and the case has not to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt like in a criminal case. The aforesaid scope of hearing of a petition becomes further constricted when the charged official does not lead evidence and does not cross-examine the witnesses of the department. Also, if a person has courage of conviction and disputes the charges against him such person must step into the witness box and face the test of cross-examination failing which departmental authorities are justified in holding him guilty. The aforesaid aspects become relevant because in the facts of the present case petitioner did not cross-examine the witnesses of the management, did not lead evidence and therefore proceedings were closed. The enquiry report is thus in the nature of an ex parte judgment of a civil court.

4. At this stage, let me reproduce relevant paragraphs of the report of the enquiry officer which shows delaying tactics on behalf of the petitioner. These relevant paras are paras 7 to 10 of the report and the same read as under:-

“(7) Sufficient opportunities were given to the CO to inspect the allowed documents and avail copies of the same from the Vigilance Department. The Charged Officer was given ample opportunity for inspection of the additional documents and supply of copies of the documents, but she has been adopting dilatory tactics to subvert the proceedings by not cooperating in the proceedings. Some of the instances are recorded as under:

i. As recorded in the first hearing held on 3.3.2011 CO was advised to inspect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document