The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the defence of the delinquent employee and recording reasons in decision-making processes, highlighting the obligation to adhere to principles of natural justice.

ORDER : – By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 5-10-2006 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the respondent No. 2 in a regular departmental enquiry initiated against him as after receiving the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2) inflicted punishment of dismissal of service vide order dated 10-11-2008 (Annexure-P/18). Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority but the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6-10-2009 (Annexure-P/22), affirming the finding given by the Disciplinary authority. Both the orders are under challenge in this petition on various grounds and the relief for quashing these orders has been claimed.

2. The respondents have filed its reply and denied the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that petitioner has been inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service as charges levelled against him have been found proved. It is also stated in the reply that considering the charges, i.e. irregularity and financial embezzlement, punishment of dismissal from service is proper and adequate. As per the respondents, in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference or judicial review in the order of Disciplinary authority is very limited. The proceedings of departmental enquiry can be interfered with on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in a decision making process or the punishment is interfered with, when it is not in consonance with the charges levelled. Here, in this case, according to the respondents, there is no violation of principles of natural justice in the decision making process and punishment of dismissal is also an adequate punishment as charges of irregularity and financial embezzlement have been proved and, thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. Before deciding the controversy involved in the matter, the necessary facts in brief are required to be mentioned which are as under : –

4. That, the petitioner was an employee of the respondent/Department, initially appointed on the post of Security Guard. Later on, he was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk and was posted in the office of Executive Engineer, City Division (West), Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshyetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., Mission Compound, Jabalpur, where he was directed to work as Electric Bill Collection Clerk through online computer.

5. That, on 29-8-2006 while working as Electric Bill Collection Clerk, an electric bill of one Shri Naveen Kumar Malhotra to the tune of Rs. 1397/- was received for collection. The petitioner received the said amount and issued receipt of the same but the computer refused to accept it. When the petitioner failed to enter the same in the computer, he enquired from his colleagues and then he came to know that the said bill is negative (minus one), therefore, the computer is not accepting the same. He was advised that it is better to return the said amount to the customer concerned and take the receipt back. The petitioner was not computer friendly, therefore, he could not handle the computer and make proper entry of such minus bill.

6. An application was submitted by Shri Naveen Kumar Malhotra on 30-8-2006 (Annexure-P/1) informing the respondent/Department that he had wrongly deposited an amount of Rs. 1397/-, though the bill was negative (minus one) and requested the respondent/Department to adjust the said amount in his future bills.

7. On 4-9-2006, an order of suspension was issued to the petitioner by the respondent/authority after coming to know about the said irregularity that he took an amount of Rs. 1397/- and did not deposit the same in the account of the respondent/Department and kept the same with him or was utilized by him.

8. The petitioner, thereafter on 6-9-2006 made an application for depositing th