ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 14.02.1990, by which he was dismissed from service and it was also ordered to recover the sum of 1,41,541.60 being the loss caused, as arrears of land revenue. The inquiry report and the order of the Revisional Authority, which have gone against the petitioner, have also been assailed in the petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
3. Alleging certain irregularities against the deceased petitioner in causing shortage of petrol and diesel belonging to the first respondent-Corporation, an inquiry was ordered on 03.10.1989. The Inquiry Officer after completion of the inquiry submitted his report dated 03.02.1990 holding the deceased petitioner to be guilty of the charge. The Inquiry Officer however recommended that appropriate punishment would be to withhold certain increments. The Disciplinary Authority was however of the view that a different punishment is to be imposed and accordingly, a notice along with the findings of the Inquiry Officer was supplied to the deceased petitioner on 06.02.1990. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and for recovery of the amount by order dated 14.02.1990. The deceased petitioner at the first instance was before this Court assailing the said order. However, since there was an alternate remedy of filing a revision, the deceased petitioner was relegated to the said remedy. The Revisional Authority at the first instance, dismissed the revision petition by order dated 07.12.1999. Since the said order was dismissing the revision for default and not on merit, the deceased petitioner was once again before this Court and the matter was sent back to the Revisional Authority for consideration. Ultimately, the order dated 13.11.2001 was passed by the Secretary to Government (Municipalities and Urban Development Authorities) i.e., the Revisional Authority, upholding the order of punishment imposed against the deceased petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the deceased petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition.
4. In the light of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, 1 have perused the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, which is at Annexure-Gl to the petition. A perusal of the same would indicate that the Inquiry Officer had held the inquiry after notifying the deceased petitioner. The preamble to the findings would indicate that the deceased petitioner was provided assistance of a co-employee and sufficient opportunity was also provided. In that regard, after noticing the defense put forth by the deceased petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has thereafter noticed the evidence tendered on behalf of the first respondent-Corporation. While analyzing the evidence, the Inquiry Officer has made specific reference to the deposition of the former store keeper with regard to the nature in which the records are to be maintained to indicate appropriate stock available. Having noticed the same, the Inquiry officer has verified the stock registers, which were produced and the stock indicated as on the relevant dates were referred to. The Inquiry Officer has noticed that the same is inappropriate and if the same is taken into consideration, keeping in view the capacity of the tank for storage, the contention put forth by the deceased petitioner cannot be accepted.
Therefore, on analyzing the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that there was shortage of petrol as well as diesel as indicated in the charge sheet and therefore, the Inquiry Officer was of the view that the deceased petitioner had committed the misconduct alleged against him acne the same had been proved in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer, thereafter taking note of the same, has indicated the value of the petrol and diesel which was indicated as shortage at 1,26,632/- and recommended the recovery of the said amount. In addition, the Inquiry Officer had also recommended the punishment of stoppage of increments, keeping in view the fact that the deceased petitioner was due to retire shortly on 28.02.1990.
5. The Disciplinary Authority though had accepted the findings with regard to the proof of charge against the deceased petitioner, was however of the view that the punishment as recommended by the Inquiry Officer would not be sufficient and had accordingly, imposed the punishment of dismissal and also for recovery of the said amount, which according to the Disciplinary Authority was in a sum of 1,41,541.60. In that regard, it is to be noticed that there is no specific reason assigned by the Disciplinary Authority to come to the conclusion that the dismissal alone should have been the punishment. Be that as it may, on the punishment imposed by the order date 14.02.1990, the deceased petitioner was entitled to file a revision petition as contemplated under Section 102 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. As noticed above, since this Court in W.P.No.3606/1996 had relegated the deceased petitioner to the said remedy, the revision had been filed. The Revisional Authority while considering the revision of the deceased petitioner has barely taken note of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and also the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and has affirmed the same. The order of the Revisional Authority, which is at Annexure-K, would indicate that before the Revisional Authority, the deceased petitioner had in fact contended that die punishment imposed is disproportionate and in the alternative had contended that even if the punishment as imposed is held as appropriate, the recovery cannot be made from the deceased petitioner. The Revisional Authority, without adverting to that aspect of the matter in detail has skirted the said contention and has come to the conclusion that the revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the context of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority as well as the Revisional Authority coming to the conclusion that the charge alleged against the deceased petitioner is proved and more particularly, since I have already referred to the nature of the findings rendered by the Inquiry Officer, I am of the view, on that aspect of the matter, the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority were justified and therefore, the Revisional Authority also did not commit any error in affirming the findings with regard to the guilt of the deceased petitioner. The question which however remains for consideration is, whether the quantum of punishment imposed is proportionate to the charge and also as to whether the recovery proceedings as ordered is appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case
7. In this regard, with regard to the punishment of dismissal, it is no doubt true, in a fact of this nature, where it is found that the deceased petitioner had indulged in the misconduct of causing financial loss to the first respondent-Corporation, the appropriate punishment has been imposed and it cannot be said that it is disproportionate. However, even though it is noticed that loss had been caused to the first respondent-Corporation and in that regard, in a normal circumstance, the recovery proceedings also would have been justified, the peculiar facts in the present case would indicate that it is not conclusive as to whether he had made any gain and in that regard, there is no proof and the Inquiry Officer has also attributed to the negligence of the deceased petitioner. That apart, the deceased petitioner had rendered long service in the first respondent Corporation and was due to retire on 28.02.1990. The punishment came to be imposed on 14.02.1990 i.e., about fourteen days prior to his superannuation in usual course. Therefore, if this aspect of the matter is also taken into consideration, in view of the punishment of dismissal, the deceased petitioner would loose his entire terminal benefits and therefore, to the extent of the loss which had been caused to the first respondent-Corporation, the deceased petitioner would be denied the benefit of long service and by such denial, the monetary terminal benefits would not be available to him and would be retained by the first respondent. Therefore, one more recovery proceedings for the said amount would not be appropriate. Further. I am of the said view for one more reason that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had died on 26.12.2005 and his L.Rs. have been brought on record. It is seen that the said L.Rs. are the daughters of the deceased petitioner.
8. Therefore, in the said circumstances, even if the recovery proceedings is allowed, considering the fact that the order indicates that the same is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, the surviving L.Rs. of the deceased petitioner woald be put to loss and in any event, since I have already come to the conclusion that the denial of terminal benefits would be more than the amount of loss, which has been caused to the first respondent-Corporation, I am of the view that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.02.1990, which is impugned at Annexure-A, though sustainable to the extent of dismissing the deceased petitioner from service, the recovery of 1,41,541.60 ordered therein and considering the same as arrears of land revenue is not sustainable.
9. Hence, the order dated 14.02.1990, only to the extent of ordering recovery of the amount stands quashed and in all other respects, the same is affirmed. It is also made clear that I have already noticed that the present order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and as such this order shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of No costs.