THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10964 OF 1999 DATED: 20.04.2010 Between: P. Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And The Chairman & Managing Director, Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10964 OF 1999 ORDER : The petitioner herein while working as Assistant Foreman (Mech.) in the Fertilizers Corporation of India Limited (for short, ‘Corporation’) was served with a charge-sheet dated 25.10.1997 with the following articles of charges: Articles of Charge No.1: Shri P. Venkateswarlu while working as Asst. Plant Engr. (Mech) in Coal Handling and Bagging Plants of Material Handling and Urea Plants during the period between November, 1992 to April, 1997 had requisitioned bearing No.23032 FAG make costing Rs.15,633.80 ps available in Bin Card No.062140160 vide Issue Note No.MHMG/C/452, dated 5.11.1992. He had also drawn the above said bearing on 5.11.1992. The above bearing was not utilized by Shri Venkateshwarlu in Coal Handling Plant and carried with him the above bearing when he was transferred to Bagging Plant under the control of Area Manager (Urea & Bagging) instead of depositing the same in the Sub-Stores of Coal Handling Plant (MHP). The above bearing No.23032 FAG made was found in his Scooter’s box by CISF personnel at Factory Main Gate while he was going out of the Factory on 3.4.1997 at 11.50 hours without any Gatepass or valid reasons. This clearly indicates misappropriation of the above bearing which he was able to do by taking advantage of the situation as mentioned above. Articles of Charge No.2: Shri P. Venkateswarlu, Asst Plant Engineer (Mech) while working in Coal Handling, Bagging (MHP) and Urea Plants of Mechanical Department during the period between 1990 to 1997 had committed misconduct in that he had drawn various materials like Bearings, Welding Electrodes, Drill bits, Spanners of various sizes and makes, Needles, Lathe m/c cutting tools, spares for Air Compressors etc., from Main Stores and Plant Sub-Stores and kept with him the above materials in his personal custody instead of depositing back the leftover material in respective plant Sub-stores as soon as the particular jobs were completed and also when he was shifted from one plant to another plant. Further, he failed to maintain proper record for the material found in his possession as per list of materials dated 28.4.1997. Out of the above materials, the Bearings of different makes accounted for Rs.1,08,720.00. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges and thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted affording him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also to adduce evidence in defence. The Enquiry Officer vide report dated 10.08.1998 held that Charge No.1 alone was established. On the basis of the said report, the General Manager of the Corporation, by order dated 25.11.1998, imposed the penalty of reduction by two grades. Aggrieved by the same, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent herein, the same was dismissed by order dated 24.2.1999. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though no case could be made out to show that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was vitiated on any ground whatsoever, or that the findings recorded on Charge No.1 were erroneous, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the appellate authority failed to assign any reasons, the order dated 24.2.1999 was liable to be set aside on that ground alone and the petitioner’s appeal requires reconsideration. On a careful reading of the appellate authority’s order, I do not find any substance in the petitioner’s contention. The 2nd respondent’s order dated 25.11.1998 shows that though the gravity of misconduct was very serious warranting the penalty of dismissal from service, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was at the fag end of his service, a liberal view was taken and instead of dismissal from service, the penalty of reduction by two grades was imposed. As observed above, the petitioner failed to make out any justifiable reason to show that the said finding was not supported by any material. As the petitioner failed to place before this Court the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, it cannot be presumed that the appellate authority had failed to consider any of the specific contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, neither the finding recorded by the 2nd respondent can be held to be erroneous nor the penalty of reduction by two grades can be held to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 20.04.2010 gbs