Point of law: It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 22.06.1994, P-3 dated 12.01.1995, P-8 dated 26.06.1995 and Annexure P- 13 dated 07.09.2011, since from last 18 years, no speaking/reasoned order has been passed in the appeal of the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, more particularly, in light of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court as per Annexure P-11 whereby the respondent No. 1 was directed to decide the appeal afresh or to supply the earlier order passed in the appeal, but the respondent No. 1 neither decided the appeal afresh nor supplied the earlier order.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay revised from time to time alongwith interest, seniority, promotion and all other allied service benefits.

2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Conductor on daily wage basis by the respondents-Corporation on 14.07.1983 and later his services came to be regularised on 10.03.1984.

3. On 29.07.1991, the petitioner was charges-sheeted by the respondents-Corporation under Rule 14 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, a regular inquiry was conducted by the respondents-Corporation and on completion thereof, the Disciplinary Authority on 10.02.1994 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to file reply within 15 days as to why major penalty under Conduct Rules should not be imposed upon the petitioner.

4. Finding the reply to be not satisfactory, the respondents-Corporation ordered the removal of the petitioner from service w.e.f. 23.06.1994.

5. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal was rejected by respondent No. 2 Divisional Manager on 12.06.1995, constraining the petitioner to file an appeal before respondent No. 1, i.e. Managing Director but the same was also rejected without passing a speaking order.

6. The petitioner thereafter preferred CWP No. 796 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 17.05.2011, allowed the petition and directed the respondents to decide the appeal afresh within three months.

7. Respondent No. 1 accordingly decided and again rejected the appeal, constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition.

8. It is vehemently argued by Shri R.L. Chaudhary, learned Advocate, that the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate and even otherwise the charges that were framed against the petitioner have not been proved.

9. On the other hand, Shri Shyam Singh Chauhan, learned Advocate, would argue that no interference is warranted in the instant case as the petitioner has been found to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 10,998/- and the said finding of facts should not be interfered with. It is further argued that the respondent can ill-afford the services of the Conductors like the petitioner, who embezzle the amount of the Corporation and put it to a loss.

10. At the outset, it needs to be observed that in the context of employment as Conductor in the Corporation and the duties and functions attached to the post of Conductor, the quantum of embezzlement or misappropriation cannot be a relevant consideration. There is absolutely no scope for any conductor to misappropriate the revenues of the Corporation in hundreds or thousands at a time. When a check is exercised on a particular day and at a particular stage, the checking officials may only detect the ticket and cash irregularities committed by the conductor within the few stages preceding the stage at which the check is exercised. Such detection may reveal misappropriation of few rupees only. What is, therefore, material and relevant is whether the complained act of conductor reflects a propensity to be corrupt and dis