POINT OF LAW: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Welfare relating to the impugned order passed by him in his proceedings Se.Mu.No.C1/1449/2005 dated 25.7.2001 quash the same and direct the respondents to pay the petitioner all the retiral benefits namely, pension, family pension, gratuity, backwages from the date of suspension and all other monetary benefits due and payable to him.)

1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Warden in the Government Backward Class Boys Hostel, Palayamkottai and holding additional charge Warden in Vannikonendal in Tirunelveli District and is residing very much close to the District Most Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Office. It is the case of the petitioner that there are 44 Government Backward Class Boys and Girls Hostel in Tirunelveli District and the respective Wardens of the said Hostel used to write indent in papers relating to purchase of food and cooking essentials and submit the same directly in person to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent, on receipt of the indents, placed the order with the Tirunelveli Cooperative Nellai Super Market (for short 'Super Market'). Since the Super Market cannot supply all the items for which indents are placed, price was fixed for the above items and payment thereof was made to the respective wardens for purchase of the various items from the available purchasers/stores. The payments are made to the respective wardens based on certain well laid procedures, wherein approval was granted by the 3rd respondent on placement of necessary files.

2. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the petitioner's house was in close proximity to the 3rd respondent office, all the wardens, when they were unable to be present personally to receive the payment from the Super Market, request was made to the petitioner to collect the amount on their behalf and in turn, pay to them, which the petitioner has been doing all along, including the disputed period of three months, viz., 12/2002, 01/2003 and 02/2003. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has been collecting and paying the amount to the respective wardens and that no complaint relating to misappropriation or preparation of indent/fake bills has been made against him by any of the wardens. It is the further case of the petitioner that the stock as well as the purchase are subjected to periodical audit and inspection by the concerned authorities and no objection has been raised with regard to misappropriation or preparation of fake bills.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent framed seven charges against the petitioner vide his proceedings dated 17.07.2003 alleging preparation of fake/fictitious indents/purchase bills with the connivance of the Super Market employees and, thereby, misappropriated a sum of Rs. 7,21,509.69. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation, enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer was appointed, who proceeded with the enquiry and submitted his report holding the charges proved. On the basis of the said report, the 3rd respondent/disciplinary authority, concurred with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and while directed recovery of the sum of Rs.7,21,506.69, however, did not impose any punishment.

4. Against the said order of recovery, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent, while issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to why punishment should not be imposed on him, as only recovery was ordered. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above and upon consideration of the same, the 1st respondent passed th