JUDGMENT

A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. — In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged his order of termination from services, passed on 15th March, 1996 by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-6), and has come with prayer to quash the same on the ground that the charge levelled against him is totally baseless and without any material on record, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the same and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order vide Annexure-6 concurring with the finding, which is neither logical nor rational.

2. The back ground of facts, in a nutshell, are as follows :-

The petitioner joined in Konark Television Limited, a Gov¬ernment of Orissa undertaking in the year 1974 as a Radio Wirer. In the year 1990, he was promoted to the post of Technical Offi¬cer and was posted at Sambalpur. Subsequently, he was transferred to Berhampur Sales & Service Centre and worked as such there from 2.2.1990 to 30.12.1990. He being a Technical Officer, was mainly entrusted with the supervision work over the technicians work in the Service Centre of Konark Television. One Jr. Clerk was posted by the Corporation in the Sales Centre for preparation of bills towards the cost of the spare parts utilized for repair of Tele¬vision sets and the labour charges. The said Clerk, being a ministerial staff, was receiving receipt books from the Corpora¬tion for issuance of money receipts, which were being sent to the Accounts Officer, Konark Television, Bhubaneswar. He also kept the receipt books, in his personal custody in the office almirah under lock and key. As regards collection of money, he was main¬taining daily collection register and was depositing the money towards sale of spare parts and labour charges in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Berhampur on the following day. It was the said Clerk, who was directly issuing the money receipt and was submitting the statement to the Accounts Officer in the 1st week of every month showing deposits in the preceding month. He was also submitting the counter foils of the money receipt for cross-verification along with statement to the Account Section of the Head Office at Bhubaneswar. He was under direct control of the Accounts Officer and used to receive his pay directly through cheques. The payment towards his salary was being made by the Accounts Officer through the State Bank of India, Berhampur where the said Clerk was directed to open an account in his name and this petitioner had absolutely no control over him. Even his casual leave was being sanctioned by the Accounts Officer of the Head Office at Bhubaneswar. During the incumbency of the peti¬tioner at Berhampur from 2.2.1990 to 30.12.1990 one Sri Mahesh Prasad Hentalia, was the office Clerk dealing with cash and ac¬count directly under the control of the Accounts Officer of the Corporation at Bhubaneswar and he was collecting money from the customers and issuing money receipts. It is alleged against the petitioner that during the period from 1.4.1990 to 31.12.1990 he had misappropriated Rs.9,050.06 paise, which was not deposited in the Bank against collection of Rs.2, 24,699.46 paise and, as such, he violated the Rule 5(1) of the Conduct , Discipline and Appeal Rule of the Company, 1988. On the said allegation, charge sheet was issued vide Annexure-1 and he was called upon to file his written statement of defence within 7 days. After veri¬fication of the document, the petitioner submitted his show cause to the charge vide Annexure-A wherein he stated that Mr. M.P. Hentalia, Jr. Assistant was independently handling the cash matter of the Berhampur Service Centre and also one R.K. Sahoo, Jr. Clerk was handling the cash matter at the said Sales Depot at Berhampur.He has specifically stated that he was a Technical Officer at Berhampur Sales Centre from 1.4.1990 to 31.12.1990 and he is no way connected with the misappropriation of the Corpora¬tion money, which he had no occasion to handle nor