By the Court.—The petitioner has prayed for calling for the record and quashing the order dated 26.4.2003 communicating the decision of the Board of Directors of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. imposing punishment of deduction of 5% from pension; not to pay any gratuity to him and for treating the period from 17.6.2000 to 30.9.2000 on which day he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, for not paying him pay and allowance other than the suspension allowance and to treat the period as break in service.

2. We have heard Shri Manu Mishra holding brief of Shri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Srivastava appears for the respondents.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that a first information report was lodged on 25/26th February, 2000, on a preliminary enquiry conducted by Shri Ashok Kumar, the then Deputy General Manager, Electricity Distribution Division, Mainpuri, against the petitioner, then serving as Assistant Engineer (Revenue) alleging that he is responsible for negligence on which Rs. 4,81,499/- were stolen from the cash chest. He was placed under suspension with immediate effect on 17.6.2000 under the U.P. State Electricity Board (now U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.) Officers and Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975.

4. A charge-sheet was issued by the Enquiry Committee on 7.8.2000, which was received by the petitioner on 11.8.2000. During the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry the petitioner retired on 30.9.2000, on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner submitted his reply on 14.9.2001 alongwith documentary evidence and was allowed opportunity of hearing in which his statement was also recorded on 4.3.2000.

5. The Enquiry Committee found that during the period September, 1994 to June, 2000, when the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer (Revenue) in the Electricity Distribution Division, Mainpuri, he was entrusted with a key of the cash chest. The other key of the double lock was entrusted with the cashier (revenue). Both the persons counted the cash in cash chest at Rs. 4,81,499/- and had closed the chest on 25.2.2000. The petitioner gave his key to the cashier/revenue, who gave his key alongwith the petitioner’s key to one Shri Sukhram Singh, Dafedar. In the preliminary enquiry it was found that since both the keys were given to Shri Sukhram Singh, Dafedar, the entire cash in the chest was stolen. The petitioner was charged with misconduct for failing to safely keep and secure the keys entrusted to him in pursuance to the order of the Board No. 2820 dated 22.11.1974. The petitioner’s defence that since he was given an additional charge on which he had taken leave and had handed over the keys to the cashier/revenue in the interest of the operation of the cash chest was not accepted. It was found that under Para 220 of the HMO the Executive Engineer was ultimately liable for safe keeping of the chest.

6. The Board of Directors as appointing authority of the petitioner did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and found that if the petitioner was aware of the procedure, he should atleast have informed the Sections Officers of allowing his key being handed over to cashier/revenue, and in any case he should have made an arrangement for keeping the key with the Executive Engineer in the headquarters. In any case he should have protested to the arrangement in which both the keys were made available to single person. He was grossly negligent in performing his duties on account of which the corporation suffered a loss of Rs. 4,81,499/-. He was found guilty of misconduct under the Regulations and was required to submit an explanation as to why he should not be punished in proceedings after his retirement under Article 351A of the Civil Services Regulations.

7. The petitioner’s reply dated 28.4.2002 was considered by the Board of Directors, as competent authority under Article 351A of the Civil Services Regulations. The petiti