(iii) In response to the above charge memo and the show cause notice, a detailed representation has been submitted denying the charges and also explaining that he had carried out his duties in terms of the standing instructions and he cannot be faulted if there was any variation, which was subsequently noticed at the head office. An enquiry was conducted into the charges but admittedly, no oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the management. However, on behalf of the petitioner, few witnesses were examined and they gave evidence in support of the contention putforth by the petitioner before this Court. However, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 18.03.2011, holding the charges proved. In response to the enquiry report, the petitioner had given a detailed explanation setting out the infirmities in the conduct of the enquiry since there was no evidence at all which was made available in the enquiry and charge memo itself was extremely vague from the same, no guilt of the petitioner could be established. However, notwithstanding the explanation, the first respondent has imposed penalty of postponement of increment for a period of six months vide order dated 16.04.2011 and also by consequential order dated 18.04.2011, ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.85,008/-. The said orders are put to challenge before this Court.
