JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Wife, daughter and son of the deceased Shri N.R. Dhariwal have challenged the order dated 08.6.2000 whereby late Shri N.R. Dhariwal was subjected to punishment of reduction in his basic pay from 9,900/- to 7,500/- minimum of the scale plus Rs. 600/- (Personal pay), copy of the order is annexure/1. 3. On 01.11.99 in memorandum of the charge served upon Shri Dhariwal informing him that Director, Mining Operation of the respondent Hindustan Zinc Limited proposed to hold enquiry against late Shri Dhariwal who was then holding a post of Senior Manager (Planning)/Jawar Mines. The inquiry was initiated under Rule 7 of the Disciplinary Appeal Rules of Hindustan Zinc Limited. The statement of articles of charge framed against Shri Dhariwal is as under: On 09.7.99 Shri N.R. Dhariwal, Sr. Manager (Planning) got loaded three pieces of wire rope approximately 60 mtrs. and one number wadge crusher place of 51/2 feet length approximately between 3.30 PM to 4 PM unauthorisedly in Jeep No. RJ-27 C 1746. Thereafter Shri Dhariwal approached Shri P.C. Verma, Sr. Manager (M) for signature in the gate pass. This was refused and he requested him to get permission of higher authority in this regard. Shri Dhariwal then requested to driver of the vehicle to drive the loaded vehicle upto Zawar Mala. This was also refused. Thereafter Shri Dhariwal drove the No. RJ-27 C 1746 by himself with another key, and approached Mochia Gate for going out along with loaded material. The CISF constable on duty did not allow the material to pass through Mochia Gate. At that point of time, he produced a non-returnable Material Gate Pass No. 001405 dated 09.7.99, which was also signed by him. As per CISF list Shri Dhariwal is not authorised to sign on such gate pass. The CISF staff also confirmed that three pieces of wire rope approximately 60 mtrs. and one number wadge crushed plate of 51/2 feet length approximately way lying inside the Jeep. These are in violation of Conduct Rules clauses 29(i), (v), (xx), (xxii) and ()xxiii). 4. It appears from the order dated 08.6.2000 (annexure/1) that petitioner was found guilty of charges 1. (unauthorised use or occupation of Company's quarter, land and other property and 2. Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour. These are in violation of Conduct Rules clauses 29(i), (v), (xx), (xxii) and ()xxiii). 4. It appears from the order dated 08.6.2000 (annexure/1) that petitioner was found guilty of charges 1. (unauthorised use or occupation of Company's quarter, land and other property and 2. Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour. These charges were under Conduct Rules 29 (xxii) and 29 (xx) of Conduct Rules. It also appears from the order of the Disciplinary Authority that the deceased Shri N.R. Dhariwal was exonerated from the charges levelled against him under 29 (i), (v) and (xxiii) which are mentioned in annexure/1, statement of charge. It appears from the facts of the case that in the matter inquiry officer was appointed and inquiry was conducted. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charges levelled against him, copy of which is placed on record as annexure/7. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents provided copy of the inquiry report before this court and it is found from inquiry report that these findings were recorded by the inquiry officer;Clause No. 29 (i): 1. Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the company or of property of another person within the premises of the company. Looking to the above facts, it is clear that Shri Dhariwal after collecting the steel scrap material filled the material gate pass No. 001405, signed "as receiver" and approached Sr. Manager (Mines) Shri P.C. Verma to sign the gate pass. As Shri Verma expressed his inability to sign the gate pass, and material was already loaded in the jeep, Shri Dhariwal thought it fit at that moment of time to keep the material at a safer place near the CISF gate so that he could take it after proper approval. The unsigned gate pass slip he produced at the gate merely indicates a list of material he brought from Mochia mine for keeping near the CISF gate that day and to be taken ultimately to Zawar Temple site. The evidences submitted before the enquiry clearly prove that as alleged Shri Dhariwal had no malafide intention of taking the material without proper authorization. He had neither any intention nor committed any act which violates the charges listed in Clause No. 29 W. The charges does not stand proved. 2. The evidences submitted before the enquiry clearly prove that as alleged Shri Dhariwal had no malafide intention of taking the material without proper authorization. He had neither any intention nor committed any act which violates the charges listed in Clause No. 29 W. The charges does not stand proved. 2. Charge No. 29 (v): Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of company. In his argument, the Presenting Officer has stated that Shri N.R. Dhariwal was not authorised to sign non-returnable gate pass, but signed the same and tried to take out the material after loading in the aforesaid Jeep No. RJ-27 C 1746 through Mochia gate. The facts presented before the inquiry has revealed that Shri Dhariwal has not signed the non-returnable gate pass as Issuing authority and has put his signature as a "receiver" of the material. He had no intention to take the material outside the Mochia gate in absence of proper authorisation and has thus not violated the provision of charges in Conduct Rule 29 W.The above charge does not stand proved. 3. Charges Nos. 29 (xx) and 29 (xxii): Commissions of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour. Unauthorized use or occupation of company's quarter, land or other property. In his brief, the Presenting Officer has stated that Shri N.R. Dhariwal left with jeep No. RJ27 C 1746 after loading the old materials even though the driver of the jeep neither gave him key to start the jeep nor helped to drive the vehicle out of the gate. Shri Dhariwal was trying to take out the material through Mochia gate and use company's vehicle unauthorisedly with malafide intention. The enquiry has revealed that although Shri Dhariwal had no intention of taking the material outside Mochai gate without proper authorisation but nevertheless he collected and lifted the material from Mochai mine and got loaded the same in the Mochai jeep and drove the vehicle unauthorisedly to Mochia CISF gate without prior approval of the concerned authority. Driving the jeep without prior permission, using a duplicate key is an act of misconduct. Shri Dhariwal has confessed the lapse of driving the vehicle in his written brief. Shri Dhariwal has therefore violated the provisions of charges mentioned in Conduct Rules 29 (xx) & 29 (xxii). 4. Charge No. 29 (xxxiii): Wilful falsification, interpollution, defacement of personal records of any records of the company. Shri Dhariwal has confessed the lapse of driving the vehicle in his written brief. Shri Dhariwal has therefore violated the provisions of charges mentioned in Conduct Rules 29 (xx) & 29 (xxii). 4. Charge No. 29 (xxxiii): Wilful falsification, interpollution, defacement of personal records of any records of the company. Shri Dhariwal has not signed the non-returnable material gate pass in place of a notified officer and as alleged has not misused his signatures for any malafide purpose. There has been no falsification of record. Shri Dhariwal has not violated the provision of charges covered in Conduct Rules Clause No. 29 (xxxiii). The above charge does not stand proved. 6. The inquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and petitioner was awarded the punishment of reduction in his basic pay from Rs. 9900/- to Rs. 7500/- minimum of the scale plus Rs. 600/- (personal pay). 7. The petitioner preferred appeal against the above order of punishment annexure/1 dated 08.6.2000. The appeal of the deceased Dhariwal was rejected by the order dated 24.6.2000, copy of which is placed on record by the respondents as annexure/R-1. 8. Deceased Shri N.R. Dhariwal thereafter preferred review petition which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.7.01 on the ground of delay only, copy of this order is annexure/4 placed on record by the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 08.6.02 as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority annexure/R-1 deserves to be set aside only on the ground that the orders are not speaking orders. The authorities concerned have not even considered the facts and the grounds submitted by the deceased employee in his reply and there is a complete non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority in passing the impugned orders. It is also submitted that the petitioner was holding a senior post and the allegation of theft etc. levelled against the petitioner shows malafide intention of the employers. It is also submitted that company itself agreed with the Govt. while taking land on lease that company will take care of old temple its repair, renovation and to maintain old monumental Archaeological sites in the leased area lying in dilapidated condition. The allegation on deceased employee is that he collected three pieces of wire rope approximately 60 mtrs. It is also submitted that company itself agreed with the Govt. while taking land on lease that company will take care of old temple its repair, renovation and to maintain old monumental Archaeological sites in the leased area lying in dilapidated condition. The allegation on deceased employee is that he collected three pieces of wire rope approximately 60 mtrs. and one number wadge crusher plate of 51/2 feet length. This was to be used for the purpose of the temple situated in the property of the respondents company itself not only this the conduct of the deceased Dhariwal clearly indicates that the deceased himself sought permission from the concerned person for taking these material to the temple place only and he kept his vehicle well within the premises, away from the gate of the respondent company itself. 10. It is also submitted that the finding recorded in the inquiry report itself proved beyond doubt the bonafide intention of the petitioner. All these things were ignored by the Disciplinary Authority while holding Shri Dhariwal as guilty. Not only this, the inquiry report itself contains findings in favour of Shri Dhariwal. The inquiry officer categorically held while deciding allegations of charge under Clause 29 (i), (v) and (xiii) that the deceased himself approached the Senior Manager (Mines) Shri P.C. Verma to get gate pass signed from him. Shri Dhariwal thought it fit at that moment to keep material at a safer place near C.I.S.F. gate so that he could get it after appropriate approval. It was also found by the inquiry officer that Dhariwal has not signed the non-returnable gate pass as issuing authority and he has no intention to take the material outside the 'Mochia' gate in absence of proper authorisation and has not violated the provisions of charge of Conduct Rules 29 (v). It is also recorded while recording the charge No. 29 (xxiii) that Mr: Dhariwal has not signed non-returnable material gate pass in place of his notified officer and he has not misused his signatures for any malafide purpose and there has been no falsification of the record and Dhariwal has not violated the charges covered under Rule 29 (xxiii). 11. It is also recorded while recording the charge No. 29 (xxiii) that Mr: Dhariwal has not signed non-returnable material gate pass in place of his notified officer and he has not misused his signatures for any malafide purpose and there has been no falsification of the record and Dhariwal has not violated the charges covered under Rule 29 (xxiii). 11. Despite all these findings, what has been said to be proved against the delinquent officer is that he collected and lifted the material from 'Mochia' mines and got loaded the same in the jeep and drove the vehicle unauthorisedly to 'Mochia' C.I.S.F. gate without prior approval of concerned authority. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that scope for interference in such matters is very limited. The charges were proved by the Department and loading of material in jeep and driving of jeep of the company is not in dispute therefore, the writ petition of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 13. The bare reading of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority itself is sufficient to quash the order of disciplinary authority, holding petitioner guilty of charges. The inquiry officer very categorically held that: 1. Shri Dhariwal had plans to take the scrap steel material for using as fence at lower temple with a view to protect the ancient heritage. He approached Shri P.C. Verma for issue of gate pass which was confirmed by Shri P.C. Verma. He also mentioned destination "Zawarkala Jeernodar". 2. Dhariwal had not signed gate pass. 3. Dhariwal kept the vehicle 4 meter away from the gate. 4. Department witness Shri Meena Sub-Inspector CISF admitted that Shri Dhariwal told him that the material was brought for keeping at the gate and not for taking outside and this fact is confirmed in the seizure memo prepared by the CISF. 5. Shri Dhariwal signed gate pass No.001405 "as receiver" and not as issuing authority. Shri Dhariwal approached Sr. Manager (Mines) P.C. Verma for getting his approval and signature over gate pass. On showing inability to sign gate pass, Dhariwal thought it fit to keep the material at a safer place near CISF gate so that he could take it after approval. 6. Dhariwal neither signed the non returnable gate pass, nor misused his signature, no falsification of record and there was no malafide intention of Shri Dhariwal. On showing inability to sign gate pass, Dhariwal thought it fit to keep the material at a safer place near CISF gate so that he could take it after approval. 6. Dhariwal neither signed the non returnable gate pass, nor misused his signature, no falsification of record and there was no malafide intention of Shri Dhariwal. 14. This is most unfortunate that even after above findings, the inquiry officer held the delinquent officer, who was holding the post of Senior Manager (Planning), guilty for charges: 1. Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour, and 2. Unauthorised use or occupation of company's quarter, land or other property. 15. The act which was not malafide, the material loaded in jeep for "Jeernodar" of a temple for which company itself had given assurance to lessor, the Govt; delinquent officer who was holding high post of Sr. Manager, himself approached another senior officer Shri P.C. Verma, sought his permission and signature to take material on the site of the temple within the area of land of respondent company itself, that too for fencing of Zawar temples "with a view to protect ancient heritage" (as observed by the inquiry officer in its inquiry report page 5 para 1), when permission was not given, he voluntarily without stopping by CISF, kept the jeep parked under a tree, 4 meter away from the gate, on spot he told that he is not taking the material outside, same is recorded in seizure memo; was treated as "act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour" and as an act of "unauthorised use of other property" of the company. Reason for holding so is that delinquent officer loaded the 60 meter wire and one steel plate in jeep and drove the jeep upto gate, stopped it at 4 meter away from the gate under a tree. The treatment given to the officer, can mildly be said to be shocking. Shocking is that Disciplinary Authority even after recording: "After very careful consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the findings contained therein, the evidence recorded and other connected papers, I have satisfied myself that there are no extenuating circumstances which would warrant a conclusion other than reached by the Enquiry Officer. Shocking is that Disciplinary Authority even after recording: "After very careful consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the findings contained therein, the evidence recorded and other connected papers, I have satisfied myself that there are no extenuating circumstances which would warrant a conclusion other than reached by the Enquiry Officer. I, therefore, accept the said findings in their entirety," still held the delinquent officer guilty of the charges by ignoring the accepted finding in favour of the delinquent officer, in view of which, no one could have been held guilty of any "act of subversive of discipline or of good behaviour" or guilty of using company's property unauthorisedly. A bare perusal of order passed in appeal annexure R/1 also passed without application of mind on the facts and grounds mentioned in the inquiry report and the material available on record. 16. A perusal of inquiry report as well as the order of the Disciplinary authority annexure/1 also reveals that none of the grounds raised by the deceased Dhariwal was considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Even the plea of delinquent officer explaining the circumstances in which the material was loaded in the jeep and kept before the gate of the company and efforts were made by the deceased person for obtaining the permission and what is the implication of that whether seeking permission from the competent authority for taking the material outside the company premises can be said to be a act subversive of discipline or act of not good behaviour or can be said to be a unauthorised use of the property of the company. Not only this the Appellate, Authority also committed the same mistake in not considering the plea raised by the delinquent officer. 17. It is also relevant to mention here that what has been said by the petitioner in the para No.9 of the writ petition that the company was under obligation by the contract to repair, renovate and maintain the old monumental archaeological site in the leased area including the temple for which these material were sought to be used have not been denied specifically by the respondents. The respondents in reply of para 9 of the writ petition merely said that the averments contained in para No.9 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner it is stated and thereafter it is also stated that the petitioners have not placed in record any documents in support of para 9 of the writ petition and in absence of which the same are denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was an agreement between the respondent company and the Govt., the denial as put forward by the respondents do not amounts to any denial of fact and, therefore, it can be treated as admission of the fact alleged by the petitioners. 18. Therefore, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 08.6.2000 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 24.6.2000 can not be allowed to stand. Both the orders dated 08.6.2000 as well as 24.6.2000 are set aside. Since the legal heirs of the deceased Dhariwal have filed the writ petition, therefore, they will be entitled to all the consequential benefits of setting aside of the orders dated 08.6.2000 and 17.7.2000 annexure/1 and annexure/2. The respondents are directed to provide all the consequential benefits to the petitioners treating that the orders 08.6.2000 and 17.7.2000 and order dated 18.7,2001 passed in review, were never passed against the deceased employee.The writ petition is allowed as stated aforesaid with cost. Petition Allowed With Costs. *******