Hon’ble Saral Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri H.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned counsel for the P.C.F.

2. The present appeal questions the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 31561 of 2000, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition of the appellant for quashing the order of punishment of dismissal from service and a recovery of Rs. 85,852/- from the appellant.

3. The case of the appellant in the writ petition is that he was posted as Sahyogi/Chaukidar alongwith one Surya Bhan Singh in the Sugar Godown of P.C.F. at Dandi, District Allahabad. A theft of 361 bags of sugar had taken place in the aforesaid Godown at 1:00 A.M. on the night of 22/23.4.1993. Surya Bhan Singh informed about the aforesaid theft to the Regional Manager of P.C.F. Dandi, District Allahabad at about 6:00 A.M. on 23.4.1993. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged regarding the aforesaid theft on 23.4.1993 by Panch Ram Yadav, Godown Keeper. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that the appellant besides other accused was involved in the theft.

4. The record reveals that later on, 101 bags of sugar were recovered by the police and handed-over to the P.C.F. on 26.4.1993. It transpires from the record that a preliminary enquiry was conducted regarding the aforesaid theft and the report was submitted by the General Manager of P.C.F., Head Office, Lucknow wherein the appellant was found involved in the alleged theft. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the appellant and the appellant was suspended in contemplation of the enquiry by order dated 18.5.1993. The Enquiry Officer was appointed, who gave the charge-sheet dated 22.1.1994 to the appellant. Two charges were leveled against appellant, the relevant portion of the charge No. 1 and charge No. 2 are extracted herein below:

^^vkjksi la[;k&1

----------------mijksDr ?kVukØe ls ;g fufoZokn :i ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd MkaMh xksnke ij fu;qDr jgrs gq, vki ,oa Jh lw;ZHkku flag pkSdhnkj }kjk Jh iapejke ;kno ds lkFk feydj xksnke ls dfFkr pksjh dh ?kVuk ds cgqr iwoZ ls lEHkkj fudkydj futh LokFkZ dh iwfrZ gsrq dkykcktkjh djds cspk tkrk jgk gSA bl izdkj vkidks 361 cksjh ysoh&phuh ihlh,Q fuxZeu nj :i;s 825-50 izfr dq0 ewY; 2]98]005-50 :i;s dk vigj.k@nq:i;ksx djus] lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ds vUrxZr phuh forj.k O;oLFkk dks Hkax rFkk la?k dks viuh futh LokFkZ iwfrZ gsrq gkfu igqapkus ds fy, vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA

vkjksi la[;k&2

----------------vki vius c;ku fnukad 24-4-93 }kjk ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vkids rFkk MkaMh xksnke ij fu;qDr pkSdhnkj Jh lw;ZHkku flag dss chp ;g le>kSrk Fkk ftlds vuq:i vki nksuksa pkSdhnkj lIrkg esa nks&rhu fnu ds fy, vius ?kj pys tkrs FksA bl izdkj vki fcuk vuqefr fy, vius dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr gksus] xksnke dks vlqjf{kr NksM+us] drZO;ikyu u djuss ds nks"kh gS] ftlds fy, vkidks vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA**

5. The appellant submitted a reply dated 26.2.1994 to the Enquiry Officer denying the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer after receiving the reply of the appellant submitted an enquiry report dated 12.3.1996 wherein the Enquiry Officer found both the charges, namely, charge No. 1 and the charge No. 2 proved against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the Managing Director, who vide notice dated 29.5.1998 issued a show-cause notice to the appellant with regard to proposed punishment, namely the recovery of Rs. 42,926 & dismissal from service, and asked him to submit an objection/reply to the enquiry report. The notice dated 29.5.1998 further recited that if the appellant wanted personal hearing or desired to produce any witness, he could demand the same and also supply the particulars/details of the witness.

6. The appellant submitted a reply to the show-cause notice dated 29.5.1998 wherein the appellant pleaded his innocence and further requested the Managing Dire