THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34513 of 1998 Dated 30-01-2008 Between: Muzaffar Ali. ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.S.E.B., rep. By its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34513 of 1998 O R D E R: Heard Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Neither the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Board is present nor has any counter affidavit been filed on behalf of the respondents. The Memo of the respondent-Board dated 05-12-1997 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner, a watchman in the respondent-Board, reported for duty on 03-08-1991, and on a theft of 850 Kgs. of copper scrap being detected, a complaint was registered. Based on the said complaint, the first respondent appointed the Superintending Engineer as the Enquiry Officer, vide proceedings dated 19-09-1994 and a charge memo dated 04-10-1994 was issued wherein the petitioner was charged of negligence in the discharge of his duties. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 18-01-1995 holding that the charge was established. The petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 06-04-1995 proposing the punishment of removal from service, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the respondent-Board issued memo dated 14-02-1996 altering the proposed punishment of removal to that of compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits. In his explanation dated 11-03- 1996 the petitioner informed the authorities that the punishment imposed on him of compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits would not have any impact since he had not rendered pensionable service. Thereafter show cause notice dated 17-12-1996 was issued asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with benefits as per eligibility not to be imposed on him besides treating the period of suspension as suspension. On receipt of the petitioner’s explanation, the Chairman further modified the punishment proposed to that of compulsory retirement from service with all benefits besides treating the period of suspension as suspension and, accordingly, issued a revised show cause notice on 26-04-1997. On receipt of the petitioner’s explanation dated 22-01-1991 the Chairman, vide proceedings dated 05-05-1997, observed that the enquiry report spoke of sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner on account of which the theft had occurred. Keeping all the events in view, the Chairman ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into duty and reduced his pay to the minimum time scale for a period of 5 years besides treating the suspension period as suspension. Petitioner was permitted to prefer an appeal to the respondent-Board within 90 days. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board, which came to be rejected, vide proceedings dated 05-12-1997. The Board opined that, under Regulation 10(2)(a) of APSEB Employees’ Discipline & Appeal Regulations, the disciplinary authority was required to appoint an enquiry officer, who in turn was required to frame charges. The appellate authority observed that the enquiry officer had examined all the accused officers, had obtained their written statements and though the actual date of theft was not correctly assessed, the fact remained that the theft had occurred at night and, prior to the theft being detected on 16-07-1994, the watchman on duty was none other than the petitioner. With regards the petitioner’s contention that storage of copper scrap had not been established, it was observed that the Divisional Engineer, Visakhapatnam, in his letter dated 20- 07-1994, had noted that copper scrap of 820 kgs., which was under the custody of Sri V.S.Subrahmanyam, Ex.Asst. Engineer and the remaining 30 Kgs. which was under the custody of Sri G.Bheemeswara Rao, Ex.Asst. Engineer, was found missing on 16- 07-1994. The appellate authority held that the theft had occurred between the nights of 13-07-1994 and 15-07-1994 and that the watchman then on duty was brought into the purview of the enquiry and hence the petitioner could not contend that the theft did not occur when he was on duty. Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and are based on no evidence, that there is no evidence on record to show that the theft had taken place when the petitioner was on duty and that the findings of the enquiry officer were based on mere surmises and conjectures. While the degree of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt, in departmental proceedings it is preponderance of probabilities. As long as there is some evidence on record, based on which a reasonable man can come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against an employee are established, no interference is called for. It is only when the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, would this Court be justified in interfering with the matter. Though Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on no evidence and are perverse, the fact remains that a copy of the enquiry report has not even been placed before this Court for its consideration. From the various memos referred to in the impugned orders, it is evident that a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. Nothing prevented him from filing such a copy, more so, when his contention is that the findings recorded therein are perverse or are based on no evidence. Since the burden is on the petitioner to establish such a plea with sufficient material, failure on his part to make available even a copy of the enquiry report would necessitate his contention being rejected. Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the punishment is disproportionate. I am afraid I cannot agree. As the charge of negligence in the discharge of his duties as a watchman is held established, the petitioner must be held, by his negligent acts, to have failed to prevent theft of 850 Kgs. of copper scrap. For such acts of negligence, which has resulted in loss of valuable property, the punishment modified by the appellate authority cannot be said to be disproportionate. Viewed from any angle, the order of the appellate authority cannot be said to suffer from any such infirmity which would necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 30-01-2008 usd