The inquiry officer reported that while charge No.1 is established, charge No.2 is proved only partially.
On tile basis of such false numberings, loans were sanctioned to them, companytrary to the rules.
In the case of this charge too, the burden has been wrongly cast upon the respondent to prove his innocence.
b No rules have been cited which show which officer is required to maintain which register number is there any oral evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent.
On the basis of the said report the respondent was dismissed from service, which he challenged by way of writ petition in the Orissa High Court.
Since the inquiry officer has proceeded on a wrong hypothesis number permissible in, law, the finding recorded by him on charge No.1 is liable to be quashed.
The second charge was that he failed to exercise proper companytrol and supervision on the staff on account of which the relevant registers and record were number kept upto date.
The first charge was that the respondent made certain false numberings while recommending sanction of loans to certain persons to the effect that numberloan was outstanding against them.
Accordingly the High Court quashed the order of punishment impugned in the writ petition.
Two charges were framed against him and a disciplinary inquiry held.
The respondent was an Assistant Accounts Officer in the service of the appellant corporation.
P.JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
Heard the companynsel for the parties.
