JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“A. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the punishment order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the Respondent No.3 and also decision dated 10.5.2010 taken in appeal filed by the petitioner, and to direct the Respondents to release 3 increments in favour of the petitioner, and grant the Continuity of service i.e. from date of suspension 1.12.2006 to actual reinstatement dated 9.1.2009 and pay full wages of the said period as the petitioner was in continuous in service along with all consequential benefits.

B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and further order/s as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the respondent - Company on 24.11.1981. During the course of employment, there were certain allegations against the petitioner and therefore, the respondents had issued order dated 01.12.2006, whereby, the petitioner was suspended from service and was transferred from Harij sub-division to Becharaji sub-division. It is the case of the petitioner that, on the basis of the said alleged misconduct, the petitioner had received charge-sheet dated 28.02.2007, in respect to certain allegations made against the petitioner, while working at Harij sub-division at the post of Jr. Assistant. The petitioner had denied all the allegations by giving reply to the charge-sheet as the allegations made against the petitioner was vague and based on bias with the purpose to save the higher officer of the respondent Company. It is the say of the petitioner that the post of Jr. Assistant is not the key post in administration, the Jr. Assistant has to work under the control of Senior Assistant and Dy. Executive Engineer.

2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner that departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, wherein, important concerned customers were not examined and ultimately, the Inquiry Officer had given report and findings on 15.04.2008 and out of 5 charges, 3 minor charges were proved and 2 charges regarding negligent, dishonesty and misappropriation were not proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner had given detailed reply of the second show-cause notice. It is the case of the petitioner that, without considering the reply of the second show-cause notice, the competent authority had imposed the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect and suspension period was treated as not in service with not to recover the suspension allowances and the competent authority had discontinued the period from service of the petitioner in punishment order, which is harsh and unjustified. Looking to the gravity of misconduct, the punishment imposed by the respondent authority is disproportionate.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner had filed departmental appeal before the competent authority, which was pending before the authority. Therefore, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.3461 of 2010 before this Court, wherein, this Court vide order dated 30.03.2010 directed the respondent authority to decide the appeal / representation made by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and disposed of the petition. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent authority decided the said appeal by order dated 10.05.2010 and rejected the same.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the punishment order dated 05.02.2009 and the order dated 10.05.2010 passed in appeal, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard learned advocat