Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—By the order dated 11.12.2008, learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellant-petitioner giving challenge to the order dated 31.12.1991 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of dismissal upon the appellant-petitioner. Learned Single Bench while dismissing the writ petition arrived at the conclusion that adequate opportunity was allowed to the delinquent employee to inspect the record and further that there was no breach of the principles of natural justice on part of the respondent-employer in holding enquiry against the appellant-petitioner for the charges of embezzlement.

2. In appeal, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are that :-

(1) The order passed by the disciplinary authority is absolutely non-speaking and unreasoned order.

(2) The disciplinary authority has not given his own findings against the charges levelled.

(3) The disciplinary authority before imposing the severest punishment has not supplied a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer.

(4) The appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant without assigning any reason and without examining merits of the case.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that while serving as Manager with the Multipurpose Agriculture Co-operative Society in the capacity of Manager a memorandum was served upon the appellant-petitioner to explain the charges levelled against him in the annexed charge-sheet. The delinquent petitioner was charged for misappropriation of funds and further for causing economic loss to the Society due to negligence in discharging official duties. A detailed explanation was submitted by the delinquent employee with assertion that no loss was caused by him to the co-operative society and further that the allegations levelled against him were ill-founded. It was also stated by him that as a matter of fact, all the transactions on which the allegations are based were under the control of the Assistant Manager of the cooperative society Mr. Shankar Lal and therefore, he is the person responsible for causing economic loss to the society, if any.

4. The disciplinary authority after examining the explanation given conducted regular enquiry and he himself acted as the enquiry officer. During the course of enquiry, a detailed statement of the delinquent employee was recorded. The enquiry officer also examined the original record of the society and then submitted his report on 09.11.1991. After having the report of enquiry, a decision was taken on 26.11.1991 to serve a notice upon the delinquent employee to have his version about the findings arrived and the penalty proposed. Pursuant to the decision aforesaid, a notice dated 17.12.1991 was served upon the delinquent employee mentioning the findings arrived as a consequence of regular enquiry, however, a copy of the report of enquiry was not supplied to him. An opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the delinquent employee, which he availed of on 30.12.1991. The delinquent employee also submitted a written explanation reiterating whatever he stated in his earlier explanation and further that whatever loss caused to the society has also been satisfied as a consequence to the order passed under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.

5. The disciplinary authority after examining the reply given by the delinquent employee passed the impugned order dated 31.12.1991 and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-petitioner preferred an appeal, but that came to be dismissed being not maintainable because the Rules of 1977 under which the appeal was preferred was struck down by the Rajasthan High Court.

6. As already stated, learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition by observing that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and further that adequate opportunity was given to the delinquent employee to inspect the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document