5
Appellate Authority and ihcrefurt: cauld {ml haw.
charge: memo and the entire enquiry prucecdingsf ‘fifiercfaare
vilialcd. And further he wank} su5;;2§£:.ih§§¥;
Officer c-uuld nut be a “pub§ic $’czf_x§.-£:,.n.lV” am am
appuinixntzni of a retired [}isi1ici—4; an..Enq:;’1iryvv?i3{I5ccr is
iilcgai and consesquenily {}::v§’cni§_,:,L.; viiiaicd.
And {‘ur!-£_F1£:’1’fl:;T!2;V’é’Vsx:.<3;:e.z'ldi §I<:.+;iAEnquiry is apposed
to na£um¥"j'u-siiitggs, Siiijinrs "£.'<xt.~§*-mt;iiési"{if the petitioner to engage:
the sc1'\.H:';cS._uf an 2~'*§i:i!s{iic«a.{<:..y§v::1s nut ptmnitted and his request
in send the ii: aieaiiiiwriling tzxpcri were not considered.
.' V. "'-AI\dzjmC'ir%i;;-tarianily, cm! [1131 the: pciiiimzcr was not
duty of the prspaxing {ha bills or writing
ehe;;ws,___va:;:i.i'i:A was the duty of [he Accounts Gflicttr Whij was
3 _ 'rr::;'pc3nsi§.:§t; for the same. It is the evidcncc cf the; said
Gfiictxr, Shri. Siddagangaswamy, which has been
T upon in axrivc at this finding ufguiiiy ufiht: puiiiiomsr.
€
6
Having regard is [he circuxiasiance that
Officczar was rtzspumsiblc fur preparing the ..
cheques, the aiiugalion {hat the pciiiiuncgr. :gfii.I.i§t.i}i7’i’s$uiz;gA
the chcqucss in his awn “name 01* in his im’if§:”.~= I}a~..~.{:r’t’1′:’*..;i:.¢..V_iVVir:t::_t~’::i’t.1i’t~:L»
on the basis of an inicrcsied -and cfirideriice would
stand viliaicd. j L _ _ _ _ _
The pcliiiqncr j.singi*;dl_fL$r enquiry and
punishr;1’ei1’£~. _ : ”; xv§i§j+::”– — Lhe: A “A’cc”t.mn£s Officcr, Shri.
fzxslrunztxnial in issuing biiis and
issuing the i3’§:::3qur;;:’V.¥r;a.é:’v_b-éét:iV: iefi unluuuhcd, would indiuaie the
V’ &unj1:”:§l”(:€;5:’3vdus;i of the rcspundenl-c-erporatiun and
xiétgdlii injustice as the guiiiy has been ptsrmiitcd
id gt; Sgggii Tim punishnmni uf dismissal from the survictss
is ‘K Lhig.hi=y” dispropurlitmaiz: from abow L-ircumsianetszs and
wuuld strait. lhai the petition be alluwwd.
5. Though the: msspundcnis have chosen no: lo 133:: any
slaicmtmt of ubjezciicrns, having regard in that nnquiry reporg,
@
which cannul be said in be oppused in principiazii ~
jusiict: arr viliaiud? for nut having. adciptxjzsséstl fat§’£,s_i_};1ni;iV ii
circumsiancccs in their true pcrspccfiyeiifii {he{“fi_ri1dings”
findings on facts.
The scvcrai groisiiiiii . psliiiurssr are nut
bonafidc: sinutsvliraie’ the effect [hat
the pcsiiliumsi’ brought against
him of the Enquiry Officer
in cannot be said that than is any
ground fur iiiir::.ri’6re::c¢”a£ this point.
_ as {he contention that the ch:-xrgza mcmu was
respxmdeng who was nut the Disciplinary
Authaziifie’ tz1v;:., is a s:¢m£r:ntiun ihai is raised as an af1er–£h:,2ughl.
Thctpcliiitxner having flied a writ petiiiun in the first instance,
.. __::iny such cunleniiun as Kn {ha enquiry being viiiaiad an accuuai
cf the charge memo having been issutad by an incumpeiesni
Z
inexplicable however that {he Cmpomiion
take any action against the Accounts’ (jificztr. .y ” »«
Be that as it may, H1c’ Q€Ei.1ioncfv- as 3-
ground in seeking to g:I.aallen;g.c:.L: {‘£:’*.1a1.§’1avc bcan
arrived at the anquiry; to lake such
auiiun againsgtv pfifsagns u inslrumtmiai
and having’ In this View of the
matter, izzierfezcme by this
Court.
“pdi£ioni:&;*7s____§:_Q:1i¢:n£iun than the pmitishzntznt Lzf
is dispmpuxiiunatc aim.) earmul be
H H ” A. , the writ peiiiicm is disnéssczi
sd/..
Judge
J}