Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. The facts of the present case show that when organizations want to harass and victimize their employees they will not stop at all. The facts of the present case show such amount of obduracy, lack of bonafides and unfairness on the part of the respondent No.1-organization that judicial conscience of this Court is shocked. The disquiet in the mind of this Court is extenuated by the fact that the petitioner-employee has been forced to resort to repeated litigations, and admittedly that too in a matter where petitioner is guilty at best of a procedural lapse and the loss to the employer-organization is only for an amount of Rs.3,175/- (difference/higher price)and which according to the respondent No.1 is a ‘huge’ amount to justify the extremely extreme/harsh punishment of removal of the petitioner from service.

2. There was an earlier round of litigation in this Court. The learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 6.10.2006 upholding the findings of the enquiry officer of the lapse on the part of the petitioner, however, finding the penalty of removal from services grossly disproportionate remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to revisit the quantum of punishment. Both the parties filed appeals and the appeals being LPA Nos.163/2007 and 231/2007 were disposed of by the Division Bench on 4.4.2008 by directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the issue of quantum of punishment to be imposed. I would reproduce the relevant paras of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench at a subsequent stage, however, let me firstly briefly state the facts of the case.

3. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as a General Manager at the Adilabad unit of the respondent No.1/employer/Cement Corporation of India. He was served with a chargesheet dated 22.8.1986. The sum and substance of the charges against the petitioner was that he accepted an unsolicited offer of M/s. Deep Auto & Allied Industries, Hyderabad for purchasing of buckets for Deep Bucket Conveyor for a sum of Rs.1,00,005/- and which was without Open Tender Procedure or Limited Tender Procedure. Holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, the disciplinary authority as per the report of the enquiry authority dated 28.12.1988 imposed the punishment by order dated 9.2.1989 whereby the petitioner was removed from service. I need not go into the detail of the findings of guilt of the petitioner because the petitioner has been found guilty, however, the salient aspect is that he is found guilty only at best of a procedural/technical violation, and the value of the order placed was also not a large amount but an amount of Rs.1,00,005. The buckets which were purchased did not go waste and indubitably were utilized by the employer, and, the total monetary loss caused to the employer/respondent No.1 was only a sum of Rs.3,175/- being the higher price. In this regard hereinafter the relevant paras of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 6.10.2006 and of the Division Bench dated 4.4.2008 are reproduced on the aspect of the guilt of the petitioner and also those observations which showed that the Court remanded back the matter because it considered the punishment of removal from services grossly disproportionate.

4. The relevant paras of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.10.2006 are paras 12 to 15 and the same read as under:-

“12. In view of the above it is not possible to say that the report of the Inquiring Authority is perverse. As stated earlier this Court cannot become an appellate authority and scrutinize the findings and come to a different finding altogether. Therefore, the petitioner's objection to the report of the Inquiring Authority also cannot be accepted.

13. Finally I come to the question of punishment. The petitioner has been removed from service. It is explained by Mr. Raj Birbal, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent that this punishment is lesser than the punishment of