eight thousand one hundred thirty two and paise thirty five only to Maharashtra State Electricity Board MSEB in respect of H No.12 B Kohun Road, Pune 1 which was allotted to him.
The order made it clear that the GOC M G Area did number intend to interfere with the discretion vested in the GCM which was free to decide the matter in the manner it liked.
The GCM on proof of the said charge sentenced him to forfeiture of ten years past service for purposes of pension.
The companyrectness of the view taken by the High Court on the grounds urged before it has number been assailed before us except in so far as the High Court has held that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the appellant was in numberway disproportionate to the gravity of the offence companymitted by him.
The evidence given by the appellant in his defence was also found by the GCM to be unreliable on account of material companytradictions in the deposition of the defence witnesses.
number payment of electricity bill was companycerned, the GCM declared the appellant number guilty.
The GOC M G Area, however, took the view that the sentence awarded to the appellant on the first charge was lenient inasmuch as the offence companymitted by the appellant was serious and involved moral turpitude.
The GCM accordingly assembled again to companysider the matter and while sticking to the reasons given by it in regard to the first charge found the second charge also to have been proved.
The GCM found that the family of the appellant had companytinued to occupy government accommodation at Pune even after his posting to the field area and that the agency who is alleged to have transported the luggage and the car of the appellant did number exist at the given address.
It also numbered that the appellant had past companyvictions to his credit which ought to be kept in view.
The GCM on that basis revoked the earlier sentence and sentenced the appellant to dismissal from service which order was after companyfirmation by the companypetent authority assailed by the appellant before the High Court at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.489 of 1997 as already numbericed earlier.
Before the High Court several companytentions appear to have been urged on behalf of the appellant which were examined and repelled by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition in terms of the order impugned in this appeal.
Evidence adduced before the GCM eventually led to the appellant being held guilty for improperly claiming Rs.16,589.30 on account of transfer of his household luggage and car to Chandigarh.
In so far as the second charge, viz.
The finding recorded by the GCM in regard to the second charge framed against the appellant was also found to be untenable by GOC M G Area as according to him the companyduct of the appellant fell within the ambit of Section 4E of the Army Act which made his behaviour unbecoming of an officer.
Aggrieved by the findings and the sentence awarded to him by the GCM the petitioner filed an appeal before the General Officer Commanding, Maharashtra and Gujarat Area hereinafter referred to as the GOC M G Area who happened to be the companyfirming authority also.
The GCM took the view that the default of the petitioner companyld number be termed as companyduct unbecoming of an official subject to the Army Act to call for any penal action.
The GOC M G Area accordingly remanded the matter back to the GCM for re consideration on the question of sentence to be awarded to the appellant on the first charge and whether the appellant companyld be held guilty on the second charge.
In its opinion the appellant had never refused to pay the electricity bill which was at any rate a matter between him and the Maharashtra State Electricity Board.
The factual matrix giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and his eventual dismissal from service has been set out by the High Court in the order under appeal.
S. THAKUR, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order dated 15th September, 1998 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay whereby Criminal Writ Petition No.489 of 1997 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the order of dismissal from service on proved misconduct affirmed.
