The disciplinary authority's decision to remove the employee for financial misconduct was upheld, as the inquiry followed due process and the employee admitted to significant charges.

JUDGMENT :

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.)

1. Heard Mr.Narendra Jain, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Yogi Gadhia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – authorities.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the order of removal from the service dated 07.03.2014 passed against the petitioner by the respondent no.1 and the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 in the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner herein belongs to Schedule Tribe (ST) community and joined the service of L.I.C. at Santrampur Branch, Dist. Mahisagar under the Nadiad Division on 03.09.1990 on the post of Higher Grade Assistant (H.G.A.). The petitioner was serving in Salary Savings Scheme Department (S.S.S. Department). The head of the department issued a letter dated 27.06.2011 inquiring about the position of the case. The petitioner replied to the same on 14.07.2011 by giving sufficient explanation. A chargesheet came to be issued on 19.12.2012 against the petitioner by the Senior Divisional Manager, Nadiad Divisional Office of L.I.C., Nadiad. Pursuant to the said chargesheet, the petitioner replied on 09.01.2013, denying the charges levelled against the petitioner and given sufficient explanation. The petitioner was called for hearing on 18.04.2013 and later on, on 26.04.2013 wherein, the petitioner had explained in his favour and urged not to pass an order of removal against the petitioner. On 18.01.2014, a show-cause notice was issued and pursuant thereto, the petitioner replied. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 passed the impugned order of removal from service on 07.03.2014. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 07.03.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 26.02.2015.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned orders passed by the respondent – authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court and prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 7/3/2014 passed by the respondent no.2 and same has been confirmed by the respondent no.1 vide order dated 26/2/2015 and be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all Consequential benefits.

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the Orders at Annexure-C & D.

(F) Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.”

5. Mr.Narendra Jain, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition be allowed. It is submitted that the impugned orders are passed without considering the material placed on record by the petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by not supplying the materials to the petitioner with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that no monitory loss caused by the petitioner to the respondent – authorities on the basis of merely a wrong adjustment of the collected premium amount and, at the most, it could have been cured by making necessary entries by the superior officer of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no serious dereliction in the duty on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the order of removal could not have been passed and the respondent – authorities ought to have imposed lesser punishment instead of an order of removal. It is submitted that the petitioner has not made to give any undue advantage to himself or any other person and the present is not a case of misappropriation. It is submitted that the authorities ought to have appreci