JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the departmental authorities dated 18.1.1993 and 22.6.1994. By the impugned orders penalty of removal from services has been imposed upon the petitioner.

2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are hit by the doctrine of proportionality. It is argued that because of the extreme punishment imposed of removal of services for the alleged loss of Rs. 420/-, the entire service record of the petitioner has been wiped out, and the petitioner therefore will not be able to get his provident fund or gratuity or other benefits. What is argued is that petitioner in a case like the present should only have been given a lesser penalty of compulsory retirement because petitioner had an unblemished service record with the respondent No. 2/employer for about 16 years before the chargesheet was issued against him. Petitioner was employed with the respondent No. 2 in 1963 and the chargesheet which was issued in this case is dated 27.4.1978.

3. Reliance is placed by the petitioner upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of