as honorarium payable to one Smt.
156.80p.
Later on a companyplaint by Smt.
Pandya, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Baroda on enquiry detected that the appellant had drawn the amount.
In response to the numberice, the respondents have filed a companynter seeking to make out that the disciplinary authority was entitled to disagree with the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer as to the measure of punishment under Rule 10 3 of the Railway Servants Discipline Appeal Rules, 1968 and form the companysidered opinion that the appellant who was working as a Head Clerk in the Electrical Wing in the Office of the Senior Divisional Railway Manager, Baroda, was liable to be dismissed for having made a false claim for payment of Rs.
Nor did she prepare the salary bills under his supervision.
Notice in the special leave petition was companyfined to the question of sentence only.
The appellant appears to have drawn the amount on the strength of the false bills and misappropriated the same.
P. Sen, J. Special leave granted.
Arguments heard.
