ORDER:

Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 22.04.2014, confirming the order dated 10.09.2012 reducing the pay of petitioner from Rs.14,605 + Rs.35/- to Rs.10,705/- + Rs.35/- and consequently direct the respondents to pay eligible retirement benefits basing on basic pay of Rs.14,605 + Rs.35/-, drawing as on the date of his retirement i.e., 30.09.2012.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Petitioner was appointed as a Kalasi in the respondents- Corporation on 09.10.1975, later promoted as Helper in the year 1980, as Vulkanizer in the year 1986 and further promoted as Leading Hand (Vulkanizer) on 11.08.2011. On the ground that a fire accident had occurred due to the negligence of petitioner causing loss of Rs.1,12,688/- to the Corporation, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner calling upon to submit his explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by him, an inquiry was ordered to be conducted and the punishment of reduction of his pay from Rs.14,605 + Rs.35/- to Rs.10,705/- + Rs.35/-, which is equivalent to reduction of his pay by (15) incremental stages, was imposed. Questioning the same, he filed an appeal and the same was allowed, modifying the punishment to reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Case of the petitioner is that while he was performing duty from 10 p.m. on 10.07.2012 to 07.00 a.m. on 11.07.2012, Mr. K.Suresh, Vulcanizer has kept unusable tyre, as those were worn out in Indag Chamber for regrouping at 06.30 a.m. of 11.07.2012 and while leaving the depot at 07.30 a.m., he informed the same to his reliever namely Mr.Badhru and incharge of section, but they did not check the Indag chamber, due to which, fire accident had occurred. It is contended that even though the Inquiry Officer has found that Mr.Badhru and Mr.Suresh were also responsible for the fire accident, Mr.Badhru was not at all punished and the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages was imposed against Mr.Suresh, which was modified to deferment of one annual grade increment, in the appeal. It is further contended that though the accident had occurred in his absence and though there was no fault on his part, the impugned order is passed imposing major penalty, which is liable to be set aside.

5. Respondents filed counter-affidavit stating that it is the duty of the petitioner to inform the time and details of the work in regard to cutting tyre, but without informing any such details to his subordinates and without handing over the shift work to next shift supervisors, he left the work place, due to which, the fire accident occurred, causing loss to a tune of Rs.1,12,688/- to the Corporation.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry in a prejudicial manner, as he has also played the role of prosecuting officer to defend the charge and further no document was marked nor confronted to him, hence, the inquiry is vitiated as the same was against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that though there was no fault on his part as he was not present at the work place at the time of accident, the impugned order is passed imposing major penalty. Hence, he prayed to allow the writ petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-Corporation has submitted that the impugned order of punishment is passed after considering the entire record, and hence, there is no ground to interfere with the same and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. A perusal of the statement of Mr.Badhru discloses that he took charge from the petitioner and after the petitioner leaving the work place, the fire accident had occurred. In the inquiry report, though the Inquiry Officer has made petitioner, Mr.Badhru and Mr.K.Suresh responsible for occurrence of fire accident, Mr.Badhru was not at all punished an