JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This petition was dismissed by me after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel on 6th January, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
2. The petitioner was working as chaukidar in the godown of Deputy Regional Food Controller, Hathras. His duty hours, according to his statement in the writ petition, were started on the relevant date from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. and the other chaukidar, namely. Veer Pal Singh whose duty was on the night from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m., a theft took place in the night intervening 17/18th July, 1998. According to the statement made by the petitioner, his duty came to an end at 8.00 p.m. and thereafter Veer Pal Singh, another chaukidar was supposed to be there. A first information report was lodged regarding the aforesaid theft which involved 66.50 quintals wheat, 30-40 quintals rice and 11 quintals sugar from the aforesaid godown. It was stated in the first information report that Veer Pal Singh, who was another chaukidar was supposed to be there on duty at the relevant date and time, was absent. On that date, Veer Pal Singh was served with show cause notice regarding the aforesaid theft and his absence from the duty. Veer Pal Singh submitted his reply, in which he has stated that due to his sudden illness he could not present himself for duty on the night on which theft took place. Veer Pal Singh further stated that he had instructed the petitioner to remain on duty till alternative arrangement is made and the petitioner should not have left the godown till the alternative arrangement was made. The enquiry officer served a charge-sheet on the petitioner also to which the petitioner has submitted reply wherein the petitioner has stated that his duty was to come to an end at 8.00 p.m. and admittedly, the theft took place after 8.00 p.m. thereafter, he cannot be held responsible. The petitioner admitted that he left the godown without waiting for the substitute of Veer Pal Singh. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the punishing authority passed the order dated 9th January, 2001, wherein accepting the recommendation of the enquiry officer that the petitioner should be removed from service but the punishing authority taking a due consideration of the long service of the petitioner has awarded punishment that the petitioner should be given one more opportunity to serve the department and one-third of the loss of the Government property, namely, food grains and sugar which was lost due to the aforesaid theft, total amounting to Rs. 30,073.90 be recovered from the petitioner as the total amount comes to Rs. 90,221.80 and adverse entry was also directed to be entered in the character roll of the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Food Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The Food Commissioner after reconsidering the appeal filed by the petitioner by his order dated 3rd September, 2002, has affirmed the findings recorded by the punishing authority and also found that no interference is required on the minor punishment imposed on the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed. It is these two orders which are under challenge before this Court by means of the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the finding of guilt arrived at by the enquiry officer and affirmed by the appellate authority suffers from the manifest error of law but he miserably failed to demonstrate the same.
4. In view of the concurrent findings regarding guilt of the petitioner recorded by the two authorities including the appellate authority, this Court does not find any error, much less error apparent on the face of record so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No other argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. In view of what has been stated above, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.