Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Buddha Prasad Pal vs Mecon Limited & Ors on 3 September, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
94.
3‐09‐2018
S.D.
W.P. 11308 (W) of 2010
Sri Buddha Prasad Pal
vs.
Mecon Limited & Ors.
Mr. S.K. Das
Ms. S. Pal
..For the Petitioner.
Mr. M. Kundu
...For the State.
An order of punishment is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner
was charged with embezzlement of a sum in excess of Rs.5 lac. He
draws the attention of the Court to the report of the Enquiry Officer
and submits that, the petitioner was found negligent in handling cash.
He submits that, the conduct of the petitioner in the entire disciplinary
proceeding was one of cooperation. The petitioner assisted the
disposal of the disciplinary proceeding as expeditiously as possible.
As the person in‐charge of the cash, the petitioner admitted that the
2
petitioner took the entire responsibility and accepted that, was at fault
when the auditors found a sum of Rs.5 lac and odd was missing. He
submits that, the imposition of punishment as removal from service is
disproportionate to the charges established. He seeks intervention of
the Court on the issue of quantum of punishment imposed.
Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that, the
petitioner all along admitted his guilt in the disciplinary proceeding. The charges of embezzlement stood proved in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner was the person solely in‐charge of the cash at the Kolkata Office. The Statutory Auditor pointed out a mismatch of a sum in excess of Rs.5 lac in the cash. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was also guilty of keeping cash in excess of the quantum of Rs.1 lac in the locker of the company. Therefore, no interference is called for.
I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and the considered the materials made available on record.
A Court need not enter into the arena the quantum of the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceeding, unless, the Court is of the view that, the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges proved.
3
In the instant case, the petitioner was charged with several offences primarily relating to embezzlement of company's fund in excess of Rs.5 lac. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner to be negligent in handling the cash despite an admission on behalf of the petitioner. Negligence and embezzlement cannot be placed on the same pedestal. The Enquiry Officer having found the petitioner being negligent in handling the funds and the disciplinary authority concurring with such view of the Enquiry Officer, in my view, the disciplinary authority had imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to the charge established. In the disciplinary proceeding the authority proceeded on the basis of the petitioner being guilty of embezzlement.
In such circumstances, the punishment of removal from service is substituted with punishment of compulsory retirement from service.
Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that, the petitioner has been given all financial benefits excepting leave encashment as the petitioner were not entitled to leave encashment in terms of the quantum of punishment imposed. Having regard to the substitution of the quantum of punishment, in the event, the petitioner 4 is entitled to any financial benefit, the authorities will disburse the same within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
W.P. 11308 (W) of 2010 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 5 6 7 8