JUDGMENT Vikram Nath, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.04.2004 passed by the Managing Director (respondent 1) whereby the petitioner has been removed from service of the UP State Sugar Corporation, Ltd. (in short referred to as the Corporation). The petitioner has further sought quashing of the order dated 14.07.04 whereby the departmental appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Corporation as Manufacturing Chemist in the year 1978 and was posted in Raibareily Unit of the Corporation. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Chemist and was posted in district Deoria. At the relevant time the petitioner was posted at Ghatampur Unit of the Corporation in Kanpur Nagar. On the basis of an Inspection made by the Director (Technical) of the Ghatampur Unit on 13.6.2003 certain irregularities were found which included bags of brown sugar containing lesser quantity below the prescribed standard, manipulation in the record regarding details of quantity manufactured and slackness in discharge of duty. Based upon the report made by the Director (Technical) the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 02.07.2003 and was attached to the same unit at Ghatampur during the period of suspension. By the same order of suspension Sri H.C. Rai, Director (Mechanical) was appointedas the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer issued charge sheet dated 13.08.2003 which contained only one charge. In short, the charge alleged against the petitioner was that the Director (Technical) while inspecting the unit on 13.06.2003 was informed by certain employees that the officials of the Company committed bungling by filling up the bags of brown sugar with lesser quantity than prescribed. Upon such complaint the Director took stock of the Godown of brown sugar and in the presence of some officials and union leaders picked up five bags for verification and found that there was substantially less brown sugar filled in the bags than required. Thereafter physical verification of the entire stock was carried out and as against the total weight of 2556 quintals of brown sugar as exhibited from the record only 1451.10 quintals was found. Accordingly the petitioner was charged for manipulation in the record, not taking proper care in verifying the bags which amounted to misconduct as laid down in Rules-72 and 73 of the Service Rules.
3. In support of the aforesaid charge three documents were relied upon. These included the (i) details of the short fall in the five bags at the time of inspection by the Director, (ii) the letter of Incharge Executive Director, Ghatampur unit dated 20.06.03 and (iii) the physical verification status of brown sugar in the Ghatampur unit. Along with the charge sheet copies of all the three documents referred to in support of the charge were furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to furnish reply within 15 days.
4. Upon receipt of the charge sheet the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 03.09.2003 pleading not guilty. In his reply to the charge sheet the petitioner:
Firstly alleged that he had been serving in the Corporation with full sincerity and devotion since 1978 and had always been issued letters of appreciation for the excellent work performed by him.
Secondly alleged malafides against one Sri S.N. Tripathi who was at the relevant time the Chief Chemist as also the Incharge Executive Director of Ghatampur unit. He was annoyed with the petitioner and had, therefore, falsely pressurised him to perform work of Chief Chemist and that he had been falsely implicated. The petitioner further alleged that earlier Sri S.N. Tripathi was Chief Chemist at the Mundervan unit of the Corporation in 1994-95 and upon complaint had been suspended at that time. For the remaining part of the session the petitioner had worked as Incharge of the said Mundervan unit. It was during this period when Sri S.N. Tripathi was under suspension in the year 1994-95 that he wanted the petitioner to do some illegal acts which the petitioner had refused and, therefore upon reinstatement, had given an adverse entry to the petitioner. Upon such adverse entry given in the year 1994-95 the petitioner was transferred from Mundervan unit to Ghatampur unit. It was only in September, 2002 that Sri S.N. Tripathi was transferred to Ghatampur unit where he joined as Chief Chemist. After some time Sri Tripathi was made Incharge Executive Director. According to the petitioner as alleged in his reply Sri S.N. Tripathi asked the petitioner to perform the work of Incharge Deputy Chief Chemist. Another incident mentioned by the petitioner in his reply was that Sri S.N.Tripathi had helped one employee Sushil Sachan of the engineering department who had misbehaved with the petitioner by abusinc him and also assaulting him on 24.01.2003. The petitioner had made a complaint against Sachan in this respect upon which Sachan was suspend but subsequently Sri S.N. Tripathi reinstated Sachan and did not take any action against him.
Thirdly tried to explain the procedure adopted in filling up of the bags. According to him the work of filling up of the bags is done in the Drwer House. Empty bags from the store are brought to the Drawer House where the sugar is filled in the bags and the filled bags are weighed under the supervision of one clerk. Supervising clerk is changed every shift. At the end of the day the quantity of manufactured sugar and the empty bags are recorded in the register by stock clerk. Further the chemist of every shift verifies the quantity of sugar filled up in the bags and in case any discrepancy is noted the same is recorded in the log book. After the sugar is filled up the bags are transferred on the next day from the Drawer House to the Godown for storage. The entry in the Godown is verified by the Godown keeper. The Godown keeper had also not pointed out any short fall in the sugar bags which were transferred to the Godown and stored there. According to the petitioner he was not involved at any stage in either filling up of the bags, verification of the quantity at the Drawer House or in the storage godown. It was only a formality that the entries are countersigned by the Chief Chemist which is a routine job.
Fourthly stated in para Nos. 11 and 12 of his reply that on 11.06.2003 at about 7.30 p.m in the evening on account of high voltage a fire broke out in the sugar godown. On that day the Executive Director, the Accountant and the Assistant Administrative Officer had gone to Lucknow to attend a meeting and therefore, the petitioner on coming to know of the fire called for the Fire Brigade and thereafter did his best to get the fire under control. The information of fire was given to all superior authorities and it was in this respect that the Director (Technical) from the Headquarter had visited the unit on 13.06.2003 for inspection. According to the petitioner about 150-170 bags of sugar were damaged on account of water and about 150-160 bags were destroyed on account of fire. It was at that time that Sushil Sachan made a complaint regarding the short fall in the bags of brown sugar. At the time o inspection of the godown certain bags were found torn from different places and implements used for cutting bags were also recovered from the Godown which Indicated that Sushil Sachan and company knew about the fact that sugar was being pilfered from the Godown. The petitioner was not in any manner involved with the alleged removal /theft of sugar from the godown as he had nothing to do with the maintenance and upkeep and security of the godown.
Fifthly has alleged that Sri S.N. Tripathi with premeditated plan had already applied for voluntary retirement and even though he was also involved in the same incident along with the petitioner but had been granted approval /sanction for voluntary retirement on 15.03.2003.
Sixthly in the end submitted that he had not committed any misconduct and the charge sheet may, therefore, be dropped and he may be reinstated.
Lastly prayed for calling Sri S.N. Tripathi in the enquiry proceedings on the date of enquiry and also for personal hearing.
5. Upon receipt of the reply of the petitioner the Enquiry Officer gave personal hearing on 29.09.2003 and thereafter proceeded to submit the enquiry report on 08.12.2003. In the concluding part of the report the Enquiry Officer has recorded that Sri S.N. Tripathi who was the Chief Chemist and the Incharge Executive Director of the Unit was aware and conscious of the fact that the bags of brown sugar were not filled up to the prescribed quantity and there was an attempt to fabricate the record by showing that there was excess manufacturing and in that respect Sri S.N. Tripathi had issued directions also to the concerned clerk and the officials involved in the manufacturing, filling of the bags and also in verification and preparation of records. The only charge found proved against the petitioner was that he was a party with S.N. Tripathi in the manipulation of the figures.
6. Based upon the said enquiry report the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 15.12.2003 calling upon him to show cause as to why major punishment be not imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice again reiterating his earlier reply to the charge sheet. In addition it was alleged that the enquiry report does not take into consideration various points mentioned in his reply. The petitioner also mentioned that Sri S.N. Tripathi who has been mainly held responsible for the manipulation has been permitted voluntary retirement by the Corporation and, therefore, any major punishment against the petitioner is not at all warranted and looking into the past service rendered by him the proceedings may be dropped. He also requested for personal hearing.
7. By the impugned order dated 07.04.2004, the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer not only against the petitioner but also against Shri S.N. Tripathi and proceeded to award against the petitioner major punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred departmental appeal which has been dismissed by the Board of Directors and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.07.2004. Aggrieved by the punishment order and the appellate order the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
8. We have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Anoop Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.D. Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent - Corporation and have also perused the material on record.
9. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Chapter-VIII of the Rules deals with the disciplinary proceedings. Rule 93 of the Rules defines minor and major penalties, Rule-103 of the Rules lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties and Rule-104 of the Rules provides that where two or more employees are involved in a case, the competent authority may direct that disciplinary proceedings against all of them may be taken in one proceeding. For the sake of convenience Rules 103 and 104 of the Rules are quoted below:
103 (1) No order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank (which includes reduction to a lower post or time scale or a lower stage in a time scale but excludes the reversion to lower post of a person who is officiating in a higher post) shall be passed on an employee unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges which shall be communicated in writing to the employee who shall be required to submit within a reasonable time, a written statement of his defence whether he admits or denies any or all of the charges. He shall also be required to state whether he desires to be heard in person, whether he desires to cross examine any of the witnesses proposed to be produced against him and also whether he has any witness to produce in his defence and if so what each witness is expected to testify. He shall also give the full particulars and the address of each witness.
NOTE:- The charge sheet shall be accompanied by copies of any statement made previously in any informal and confidential enquiry Into the allegations against the employee. Further, below each charge shall be listed the documents and proofs proposed to be taken into account at the enquiry and the particulars of witnesses proposed to be examined in support of each charges.
(2) Before submitting his written statement of defence to the inquiry officer, the charged employee may ask to be allowed to inspect the documents cited In the charge-sheet or any other relevant record and /or also ask for copies of any relevant documents. Reasonable facilities for inspection will be allowed to him and he may be supplied with copies of such documents as, in the opinion of the enquiry officer are such that the requirement of reasonable opportunity of defence can not be fulfilled without their inspection or the supply of copies, as the case may be.
(3) On the date fixed for hearing by the enquiry officer, the oral and documentary evidence by which the charges are proposed to be proved shall be considered by the enquiry officer. The witnesses may be cross examined by the charged employee, if he desires to do so. The enquiry officer may also put such question to the witnesses as he thinks fit.
(4) The enquiry officer may allow the production of evidence not specified in the charge sheet or may himself call for new evidence or recall or reexamine any witness. In such a case the charged employee shall be given an opportunity to inspect the documentary evidence brought on record or to cross-examine a witness who has been so summoned.
(5) The evidence on behalf of the charged employee shall then be produced. The employee may himself have his statement recorded as a witness on his own behalf, if he so chooses. The witness produced by the employee shall then be examined, cross examined and reexamined, as may be necessary, with power to the enquiry officer to put any question to any witness. However, the enquiry officer conducting the enquiry may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness.
(6) The evidence of the witness shall be recorded in the language which he speaks. The statement shall be signed by the witness after it has been recorded. The enquiry officer shall give a certificate at the end of the statement that it has been read over and explained to the witness and he has signed the statement in his presence.
104. Where two or more employees are concerned in a case, the authority competent to impose a major penalty on all such employees may make an order directing that disciplinary proceedings against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding and the said competent authority may function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of such common proceedings.
10. Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner has challenged the impugned order awarding punishment on the following grounds:
a) The procedure prescribed under the Rules for awarding major penalties have been completely violated and given a go by, by the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the enquiry stands vitiated.
b) Due opportunity was denied to the petitioner in the enquiry as despite request in his reply the enquiry officer did not call Sri S.N. Tripathi in the enquiry.
c) The respondent - Corporation adopted double standard in awarding punishment inasmuch as the main person found guilty of misconduct Sri S.N. Tripathi has been allowed voluntary retirement and all payments have been made to him except for a small fraction as token of penalty and on the other hand the petitioner has been awarded major penalty of removal from service.
d) At the most, the only misconduct of the petitioner was that of being careless in putting his signatures on certain forms which had been prepared by others and also verified by the other officials, which was only procedural and not to gain any personal advantage and did not cause any financial loss to the Corporation, therefore, the punishment of removal awarded to the petitioner is too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged charge /misconduct.
11. On the other hand Sri R.D. Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation without disputing the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer has submitted that due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner in the enquiry and his reply has been duly considered and there is no denial of opportunity. He further submitted that even if no financial loss had occasioned to the Corporation, but still on account of being involved in manipulation of the record the Corporation had lost confidence in the petitioner and therefore the order removing him from service was completely justified and did not suffer from any infirmity nor was it too harsh.
12. With regard to the first contention Sri T.P. Singh has submitted that firstly, the petitioner was not given due opportunity in the enquiry as no documents in support of the charge were supplied to him. This contention fails firstly for the reason that along with the charge sheet three documents referred therein on which charge was based have been supplied to the petitioner and there is no dispute to the same. Further this point also fails for the reason that the petitioner had not made any claim or request with regard to having not received the three documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer In the charge sheet nor had the petitioner sought for any other document either in his reply to the charge sheet, or in his reply to the show cause notice or in the grounds of appeal.
13. The second part with regard to the first contention is that the Enquiry Officer after issuing the charge sheet and upon receipt of the reply of the petitioner did not hold any inquiry by recording the statements of any witness, to establish the charge levelled against the petitioner and, therefore, in the eyes of law no Inquiry was held which clearly violated Rule 103(1) of the Rules. In this regard It may be noted that the charge sheet was based upon a report dated 13.06.2003 pursuant to an inspection made by the Director (Technical). The second document relied upon in the charge sheet was a report dated 20.02.2003 by the Executive Director requesting for physical verification of the entire stock of brown sugar stored in the Godown of the unit. The third document relied upon is of the engineering department which performed the physical verification of the stock of the brown sugar.
14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and Anr.
(ii) Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op Spg. Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur and Anr. 1999 (4) AWC 3227
(iii) O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors.
(iv) Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Lachhman Dass Gupt and Anr.
(v) Rajinder Kumar v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Anr. 1994 (68) FLR 155
(vi) Bhupinder Pal Singh v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Ors.
(vii) Shiv Shanker Saxena v. The State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (4) ALJ90
15. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that all the three documents relied upon in the charge sheet were not disputed by the petitioner in his reply. They did not require any proof. Further, the petitioner had not made any request for producing any witness in his defence. Moreover, as the petitioner has not disputed his signatures on the TR forms therefore there was no necessity for the enquiry officer to record statements of witnesses to prove the documents. The misconduct in effect is admitted to the petitioner.
16. Having considered the submissions and having perused the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, we are of the view that the petitioner having not disputed the correctness of the three documents relied upon in the charge sheet and having also not disputed of having signed the T.R. Forms, we do not find any reason to disagree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents.
17. It is also true that the scale of proof in departmental proceedings are not comparable to the scale of proof required in civil suits or criminal proceedings. The principles of proof of documents as required under The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not strictly applicable and in fact cannot be applied to departmental proceedings. While considering such an issue, the Apex Court in the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 1795 held that The approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him; whereas in criminal proceedings the question Is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct.
18. Now coming to the decisions relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, we find that in the case of Shatrughan Lal (supra), the issue was non-supply of documents which were relied upon in the inquiry and on the basis of which the charge sheet was issued. The Apex Court held that the inquiry was vitiated in the absence of such documents having not been supplied to the delinquent. In the present case, all the documents referred to in the charge sheet were supplied to the petitioner, and therefore, the said decision has no application to the present case.
19. In the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma (supra), the delinquent employee had denied the charges and whereafter the inquiry officer did not record any evidence and proceeded to submit the inquiry report. The Court in the circumstances held that such a procedure was violative of principles of natural justice, fair play and equity. In the present case, the petitioner had not disputed the charges levelled against him, but only alleged the circumstances in which he had committed the misconduct. The inquiry officer, in our opinion, was in the circumstances, under no obligation to record any evidence where the petitioner himself had not disputed the misconduct alleged against him nor had disputed the correctness of the documents relied upon in the charge sheet. Therefore, the said case also does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case.
20. In the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a question as to whether opportunity of hearing could be dispensed with in the case of minor penalty. In the present case, opportunity of hearing has not been denied and the petitioner has availed the opportunity of hearing both before the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, and therefore, this case also does not help the petitioner.
21. In the case Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra), again the question was of non-supply of documents relied upon by the inquiry officer to the employee facing inquiry, and therefore, this case also is of no help to the petitioner as the documents relied upon in the charge sheet had been supplied to him.
22. In the case of Rajinder Kumar (supra), neither the inquiry report was supplied nor opportunity was given to the delinquent employee to explain the material contained in the inquiry report. In the present case, the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice and the petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause before the disciplinary authority, and therefore, this case is also distinguishable and is of no help to the petitioner.
23. In the case of Bhupinder Pal Singh (supra), opportunity of cross examining the witnesses, whose statements had been recorded by the inquiry officer was not afforded to the charged employee. In the present case, nc witnesses were examined in the inquiry, and therefore, there is no question of any denial of cross examination to the petitioner. This case also is clearly distinguishable on facts.
24. In the case of Shiv Shanker Saxena (supra), the charged employee was not furnished the documents relied upon against him in the inquiry. This judgment is of no help to the petitioner as all the documents in support of the charge sheet and relied upon in the inquiry have been supplied to the petitioner.
25. Thus, we find that all the cases relied upon by the petitioner are of no help and are dearly distinguishable on facts.
26. Considering all these factors, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry was vitiated as no oral evidence was recorded to establish the charge against the petitioner.
27. Coming to the next point raised, it may be noted that the petitioner had alleged malafides against Shri S.N. Tripathi in his reply to the charge sheet and had requested that Sri S.N. Tripathi may be summoned on the date of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer neither summoned Shri Tripathi nor did he record any reason rejecting the said request of the petitioner.
28. Although the Enquiry Officer has not relied upon any earlier statement of any employee and has only referred to the various reports including inspection report, the physical verification report and the documents relating to production and the storage but at the same time once the delinquent raises an issue of malafide with some proof in support thereof then it becomes incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to have called such person in the enquiry and afford an opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner.
29. Again it would be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner has not disputed the short fall in the bags of brown sugar but has all along alleged that he has been a victim of his superior Sri S.N. Tripathi who was annoyed with him for various reasons. In the original writ petition Sri S.N. Tripathi had been made a party by name as allegations of mala fide had been made against him. However, during the course of arguments learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner made a statement upon instructions received from Sri Anupam Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner be permitted to delete the name of Sri S.N. Tripathi from the array of parties and further that all allegations of mala fide made against Sri S.N. Tripathi are not pressed.
30. In this back-drop, the situation which emerges is that the allegations of mala fide alleged against Sri S.N. Tripathi in the writ petition do not remain on record any longer and, therefore, cannot be referred to by us. Thus the only question which remains is whether the Enquiry Officer was or was not justified in summoning Sri S.N. Tripathi in the enquiry.
31. It is not in dispute that S.N. Tripathi was also charged of the same misconduct as the petitioner. Further the enquiry report records a specific finding that the said Sri S.N. Tripathi who was the Chief Chemist and the Executive Director of the Ghatampur unit was aware of the fact that there had been less production and efforts were made by him to show production in excess than what was actually manufactured and in that process had issued directions to the concerned staff to somehow match the projected figure by manipulation of figures in the records.
32. The petitioner had also alleged in his reply that he has been wrongly and against the rules given the work of Incharge Deputy Chief Chemist whereas the Incharge was Sri S.N. Tripathi and he should have continued to discharge his duty as Chief Chemist. The statement of Sri S.N. Tripathi and cross examination by the petitioner, in our opinion, was therefore necessary. The petitioner had alleged that he was nowhere involved either in the weighing of sugar bags, or its transfer from the drawer house to the storage Godown and its safety in the storage Godown. He had only been charged for countersigning the TR forms which had been prepared by someone else and had been verified by the concerned clerk and the shift chemist. The Enquiry Officer therefore ought to have verified the same from Sri S.N. Tripathi. This having not been done we find that the Enquiry Officer who under law had been the authority to summon a witness or to permit cross examination failed in discharging the said duty.Thus there was clear violation of the service rules.
33. We are, therefore, of the view that non summoning of Shri Tripathi as a witness may have vitiated the enquiry. However the impact of such irregularity whether it will result into quashing of the enquiry proceedings or may be a factor relevant for recording other findings will be discussed at a subsequent stage in this judgment.
34. With regard to the third point that respondents had adopted double standard in awarding punishment, it was alleged before the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority that Shri S.N. Tripathi's option for voluntary retirement had been accepted whereas the petitioner is being unnecessarily punished. In the writ petition also the petitioner has specifically alleged that Shri S.N. Tripathi has been permitted voluntary retirement. In reply it was alleged in the counter affidavit that enquiry against Sri S.N. Tripathi was still pending and the payments due upon voluntary retirement had not been finalised. It was further alleged that Sri Tripathi had not been paid the amount admissible to him under the voluntary retirement scheme. Along with rejoinded affidavit the petitioner has annexed decision of the Disciplinary Authority dated 16.05.2005 according to which as the request of voluntary retirement of Shri S.N. Tripathi had already been accepted, therefore, as a token of punishment only an amount of Rs.l lac has been deducted from the total compensation of Rs. 11,04,900/- due to Sri S.N. Tripathi. The remaining amount has been directed to be paid to Shri Tripathi.
35. The order dated 16.5.2005 filed as Annexure RA1 speaks volumes about the discriminatory attitude of the respondents. According to the said order Shri Tripathi was earlier charge sheeted for similar charges of manipulation of records, display of excess production, short fall in filling of sugar and brown sugar, financial loss to the Corporation vide charge sheet dated 20.05.2002 when he was posted at Shahganj unit of the Corporation. After receiving reply of Shri Tripathi the inquiry officer submitted his report with a finding that he was not guilty. Before final decision could be taken the incident at Ghatampur took place upon inspection of Director (Technical) on 13.6.2003 again finding Shri Tripathi responsible for manipulation of records, display of excess production, short fall in filling of sugar bags. In his inspection report dated 13.6.2003, the Director (Technical) had prima facie found Shri Tripathi responsible along with others which included the petitioner. Though the petitioner was charge sheeted and subsequently punished the Corporation did not issue any charge sheet to Shri Tripathi for the said minsconduct. It was only after the inquiry in the case of petitioner had concluded and show cause issued in December, 2003 that a charge sheet was issued to Shri Tripathi on 1st April, 2004. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 06.12.2004 and after considering the reply of Shri Tripathi, held him guilty of the charge. Despite the same the disciplinary authority which was the same as of the petitioner vide order dated 16.5.2005 directed for release of Rs. 11,04,900/- after deducting only Rs. one lakh. It may be noted that Shri Tripathi had been allowed voluntary retirement much earlier during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him. This was contrary to service jurisprudence. This stand taken by