Judgment:
R.N. Misra, J.
1. This is an application for a writ of cerniorary to quash the punishment impose in a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner.
2. Petitioner was serving as a Grade I Assistant in the Planning and Co ordination Department of the State Government when in 1971, a set of charges were named against him on the score that he had made a misrepresentation and suppressed facts; he had made false entries in Government documents which amounted to misconduct and he was negligent in ins duty. Similar charges had been communicated to him in three stages, but he had ultimately been punished with reference to one set of charges Petitioner asked for certain documents before furnishing his explanation against the charges and claims that in the absence of the documents he was obliged to submit his explanation. The enquiry was not made in accordance with the Rules and natural justice and ultimately he has been debarred from drawing any increment in the scale of pay for five years with cumulative effect.
3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State to justify the disciplinary action. Learned Additional Government Advocate also produced the records of the disciplinary proceeding. Having examined the records, we agree with the contention of Mr. Mohanty for the petitioner that the enquiry was not proceeded strictly in accordance with the Rules and some evidence seems to have been collected behind the back of the petitioner. We do not, however, agree with the submission of Mr. Mohanty that on this count, the petitioner is entitled to relief. The charge of negligence of duty was on the basis that at the time petitioner was transferred from service in the alternative employment cell to the Roads and Buildings Section of the Department, there were about 1,500 receipts pending in his seat and he did not formally hand over the receipts excepting 222 of them to his successor. In his explanation, the petitioner clearly admitted that he had made a list of 222 letters which according to him required urgent action and left behind a large number of other papers which in his opinion did not require specification. The disciplinary authority on the basis of this explanation has found:.This means that there was large number of receipts pending with him though, according to him, ex-cepting for 222 of them, no other paper required any specific action and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to include them in the list of papers which were to be formally handed over to his successor. This is clear admission of the charge framed against him. For, it is not within the competence of an Assistant to take final decision at his level as to whether or not any action was called for on any paper handed over to him. It is his responsibility to process each paper he receives in the relevant files and submit the file through the Head Assistant for orders of the competent authority. An assistant has no discretion to keep a paper with him on the plea that according to him no action was called for on that paper and then leave it like that without processing it in the relevant tile without formally herding it over to his successor at the time of his transfer That is to say, on his own admission this charge has been proved, there was, therefore, no need to prove this charge in course of the enquiry Thus, There is no scope to say that the inquiring officer did not follow the correct procedure for proving this charge.
We entirely agree with this conclusion of the disciplinary authority.
4. Law is well-settled that when one out of the several charges is established, the quantum of punishment is not for consideration of the Court, in other words, if punishment is inflicted on the basis of several charges and even if the Court comes to hold that excepting one, all other charges are not established, it is not within the purview of the Court to interfere on the footing that the punishment is disproportionate. In this view of the matter, we do not think, the petitioner can succeed in his attempt to vacate the punishment.
5. The wit application fails and is dismissed, We, however, make no order for costs.
K.B. Panda, J.
I agree