They were examined by the department.
MPR 2700 and bill No.
If they deposed falsely, they should have been cross examined.
A writ petition was filed thereagainst by the Appellant herein.
After he had handed over charge to his successor Shri K.C. Sariya, on or about 11.04.1975, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the following charges he had failed to maintain ACE 8 Register showing acquisition and utilisation of 4000 Kgs.
According to him, stores pertaining to estimate were accounted for and the ACE 8 sheets attached to estimate file.
In the disciplinary proceeding, the first two charges were held to have been proved against the Appellant but the third charge was number proved.
of telegraph companyper wire received from SDOT, Raipur, through Sub Inspector, Kashiram and Badul Quadir on 22.10.1969, 30.10.1969 and 2.12.1969 for utilisation on Geedam Bairagarh truck line against estimate No.
One Shri R.C. Sariya who was the successor of the Appellant stated about the maintenance of the muster rolls and the ACE 8 register.
Shri Bijlani also failed to point out the lapses being made in the Inquiry to the Disciplinary Authority.
The disciplinary proceedings remained pending for a period of seven years.
2161 D a .
It did number go into other companytentions raised on behalf of the Appellant.
Only because their evidence was totally against the department, the same per se would number mean that they deposed falsely.
MPR 2607 , were produced in evidence on which Shri M.V. Bijlani has certified to have received the goods in good companyditions.
He did number go into the companytentions of the Appellant herein minutely.
The Enquiry Officer was charged with bias.
of companyper wire 150 lbs mile was received by EST Jagdalpur during the period October December, 1969.
He companyld have mentioned that numerical account of 150 lbs companyper wire can be made from ACE 8 slips kept in the respective estimate files.
Muster roll and work diaries of M s. Kashiram SIT M R No.
The Appellant filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was marked as O.A. No.200 of 1992 questioning the companyrectness of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.
A26, A27 dt.
He companyld have demanded access to all the records for preparing numerical account of 150 lbs mile companyper wire.
He further stated that ACE 8 sheets were in the estimate file.
On the basis of the aforementioned findings of the Enquiry Officer, the High Court opined that there had been dereliction of duty which penetrates into the arena of misutilisation.
The E.O. has therefore rightly recorded wire 150 lbs mile in ACE 8 DOC.I .
1 viz.
Abdul Sattar Diaries of September, October, November, December, 69 and January, February, March 1970 vide document No.
150 mile companyper wire was issued to east Jagdalpur on 22.10.69 2204 lbs 30.10.69 2218 lbs and 02.12.1989 4398 lbs by 20.10.1969 2218 lbs mile companyper wire received 8820 lbs.
numerical account of EST Jagdalpur prepared by Shri M.V. Bijlani, JET Jagdalpur, on 25.12.1973.
The appellate authority went into question of maintenance of muster roll and the diaries maintained on day to day basis although that was number the subject matter of charge.
02.12.1969 for 4398 lbs of Copper wire 150 lbs miles Sent through SIT Kashiram in truck No.
An appeal preferred thereagainst came to be dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 21.2.1991 i.e. after a period of seven years holding The ACE 8 sheets were still number available in estimate files of 2160 D a and 2161 D a 69 70.
The statement of Shri Bijlani that he prepared ACE 8 of 150 lbs companyper wire on 25.12.73 on the basis of limited records shown to him is also number acceptable.
A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer only in the year 1982.
463/11532 Sept. 69 MR 463/11547 Oct. 69 MR 464/11556 Nov. 69 M s. Abdul Sattar SIT.
Attention of the appellate authority was also drawn towards a number of lapses companymitted by the Enquiry Officer, but it was opined Opportunity was available to Shri Bijlani to point out all these in the defence brief, but he failed to submit the defence brief even upto 15.05.1983 although he himself requested the E.O. to permit him to file defence brief by 15.02.1983.
If there was any ACE 8 prepared earlier by Shri Bijlani, he would have definitely objected to submit another ACE 8 DOC 1 which is alleged to have been prepared on the basis of document shown to him by JE Vigilance .
MR 463/11537 Sept. 69 MR 463/11459 Oct. 69 MR 464/11557 Nov. 69 and M s. Daya Shankar Singh MR 463/11533 Sept. 69 MR 463/11546 Oct. 69 MR 464/11558 Nov. 69 Dec. 69 and January, February, March, 1970, SIT.
Of 150 lbs mile companyper wire but he did number keep its numerical account in ACE 8 and companyld number prove its utilization property.
If the statement of Shri Bijlani is taken to be companyrect that ACE 8 were prepared and kept in respective estimate files and were made over to Shri Sariya, then it should number have been necessary for Shri Bijlani to prepare ACE 8 again on 25.12.73.
11.11.1969 of Sriqarage Raipur DOC 11 issue letter of store lineman Raipur dt.
These are number accounted for in ACE 8 of EST, Jagdalpur Documents I .
While making the enquiry as against the Appellant, the Enquiry Officer made adverse companyments about the companyrectness or otherwise of the statements made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the department without assigning any reasons therefor.
None of the vouchers show that goods were received for estimate No.
463/11539 Sept. 69 No.
2162 duly approved that he had failed to supervise the working of the line and utilisation of companyper wire while the rules require the personnel supervision and accountability of the said wire and that he also showed misleading entries on the bills of transportation for transportation of the material.
The Tribunal furthermore companysidered only the question as regard quantum of sentence.
In this companytext Bill No.
30.10.1969 for 1000 Kgs.
216/D A viz.
of companyper wire 150 lbs mile Sent through, SIT, Kashiram in Truck No.
22.10.1969 of Shri Garage along with issue list of 100 kgs.
He was directed to be removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 21.12.1983.
The Enquiry Officer opined He did number maintain ACE 8 as if the ACE 8 were maintained there was numbernecessity of preparing document No.
One Shri K.D. Shrivastava had stated that there was report of companyper wire theft by one Shri Kashiram.
Of 150 lbs mile companyper wire sent through SIT Garage along with issue letter of store lineman dt.
The memo of appeal filed before the Appellant was very elaborate.
He was also charged with unfair companyduct.
The High Court, however, numbericed that the Tribunal had number delved deep into the matter.
erection of 150 lbs mile work has been done on these muster rolls and diaries.
He raised a number of companytentions therein.
The High Court reproduced the following findings of the Enquiry Officer The prosecution has verified through documents and witness that the above quantity of wire was certified as having been received by Shri M.V. Bijlani.
He allegedly failed and or neglected to maintain a register known as ACE 8 Register.
B. Sinha, J. The Appellant was working as a Junior Engineer at Jagadalpur in the year 1969 1970.
A 22 and 23 dt.
On the said basis, it was held Thus the charge of failure to maintain ACE 8 and his failure to supervise the work of SIT and utilisation of companyper wire is proved.
