WP(C) 4445/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr DM Thakuria, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms J Bora, the learned State counsel. This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner against the o rder of the disciplinary authority removing him from service on the ground of mi sappropriation of goods from the godown worth Rs. 3,89,303.97. The petitioner w as initially appointed as Godown Assistant by the respondent authorities in the year 1974 whereafter he was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1987. While he was posted at Statfed, Barpeta Road Branch, a special audit was conduc ted by the respondent authorities and it was found that the petitioner had misap propriated goods from the godown worth Rs. 3,89,303.97. On the basis of this al legation, the respondent authorities held a domestic enquiry against the petitio ner. The enquiry was conducted by a retired official who in his enquiry report concluded that the charges against the petitioner were proved. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority (Managing Direct or, Statfed, Guwahati) by the impugned order removed him from service with immed iate effect. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an app eal before the Chairman, Statfed which was pending for a long time before the ap pellate authority. When the appeal was not disposed of for a considerable perio d of time, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5772/2000, which was disposed of by directing the appel late authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months after givi ng due opportunities to the petitioner to present his case. Acting purportedly on the basis of the aforesaid order of this Court, the appellate authority, whic h is the Liquidator, Statfed, considered the appeal and dismissed the same with by holding that he did not find any ground for reviewing the order of removal. It is against this that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. I have carefully gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer which is at Ann exure 1 to the affidavit-in-opposition and the order removing the petitioner fro m service. In my opinion, the petitioner is unable to point out any act of lega lity, arbitrariness or procedural improprieties in the impugned order of removal . It is true that an appeal is not an empty formality and that the appellate au thority should have been more elaborate in recording the order rejecting the app eal. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that no injustice is done to the petition er, I have pointedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to independen tly establish before me any serious infirmity in the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, two witnesses, namely, Sri Kanak Chandra Das, Assistant manager (Audit) and Shri Lakshmi Kanta Phukan, Sub-Accountant (Audit), were exam ined in the enquiry but he was not given an opportunity to adduce any evidence. In my opinion, this contention appears to be mis-conceived. In the affidavit-i n-opposition, it has been elaborately pointed out that an adequate opportunity w as already given to the petitioner in the course of hearing but he failed to ava il the opportunity given to him. Besides, a perusal of the enquiry report will reveal that the Enquiry Officer scrupulously observed the procedure prescribed f or departmental enquiry. No defect of substantial nature could be found from th e enquiry report. Next, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petition er that the materials evidences on record were not considered by the Enquiry Off icer in the proper perspective. Now, what are those evidences which were not co nsidered in a proper perspective by the Enquiry Officer have not been specifical ly mentioned. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that any prej udice has been caused to the petitioner on this score also. Failure to supply do cuments to the petitioner per se cannot vitiate the departmental proceeding unle ss it is demonstrably shown that the substantial prejudice has been caused to hi m. Lastly, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is harsh and grossly disproportionate of mis-conduct proved against him. In my judgment, this contention is noted only to be summarily rejected. It must be remembered that the petitioner was found t o be guilty of causing shortage of stock valued Rs. 3,89,303.97 between 13.09.89 to 31.03.90 under his very nose. This amount must have been quite considerable at the relevant time. To interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinar y authority on the proved mis-conduct of the petitioner, under the circumstance, is absolutely hardly called for. Therefore, looking at the matter from all ang les, I do not find any ground for interference in the impugned order of removal as well as the order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. The parties are, however, directe d to bear their respective costs.