JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A.No. 277(C) of 1994 as well as the enquiry report and the final order of the disci¬plinary authority imposing punishment upon him. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was serving as a Packer in the Cuttack Sales Centre of the Text Book Press under the administrative control of the Director, Text Book Production and Marketing (opposite party No. 1). One Madhusudan Mishra and Nrusingh Prasad Parida were in charge of Cuttack Sales Centre. During the course of audit, misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 1,22,510.15 was detected in the Sales Centre, for which a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. The Inquiring Officer who en¬quired into the matter came to the finding that the petitioner is not maintaining the ledger properly as per the direction of the Assistant-in-charge and that all the columns are not filled up by the Assistant-in-charge. The petitioner could have brought the fact of non-maintenance of the ledger by the Assistant-in-charge to the notice of the higher authorities. The Inquiring Officer came to the conclusion that charges against the petitioner have been partially proved. Basing upon the said enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, opposite party No. 1, imposed the follow¬ing penalties: “1. The period of his suspension from 01.07.1982 to 23.07.1991 is treated as suspension for all purposes. 2. His next annual increment is stopped for a period of six months with cumulative effect. 3. An amount of Rs. 12,251.02 covering 10% of the total loss of books worth Rs. 1,22,510.15 will be recovered from him @ 1/3 of his total emoluments (except H.R.) drawn by him towards his monthly salary consecutively and remainder, if any, from his D.C.R.G.” Against the aforesaid order of punishment, the petitioner ap¬proached the Tribunal by filing the O.A. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the O.A. in part by quashing the order of recovery of the amount of Rs. 12,251.02 from the petitioner. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. 12,251.02 from the petitioner. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held the petitioner guilty for improper maintenance of ledger without properly appreciating the specific charges on which the departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He also submitted that the ledger is to be main¬tained by the Assistant-in-charge. Therefore, for any wrongful maintenance of the ledger, the petitioner cannot be held respon¬sible. 4. Mr. Rath, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department, submitted that the petitioner was to maintain the ledger in addition to his own work. He further submitted that the Packer is to assist the Junior Auditor in maintaining store, receipt and issue of books, maintenance of ledger, etc. In this connection, he relied on Office Order No. 239 dated 03.07.1974, copy of which was annexed to the counter filed before the Tribunal. 5. Perused the memo of charges, the inquiry report, the order of the disciplinary authority, the judgment of the Tribunal and the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties before the Tribunal, more particularly the Office Order No. 239 of 03.07.1974. The said order reveals that the Junior Auditor-in-charge was in charge of the main store and another Lower Division Clerk was in charge of the text books and magazines. It further reveals that the Packer (petitioner) was only to assist the Junior Auditor in maintaining store, receipt and issue of books, maintenance of ledger, etc. A bare reading of the said order makes it crystal clear that the duty of the petitioner at the relevant point of time was to assist the Junior Auditor in the above works in addition to his own work. In other words, he had no independent responsibility. The Inquiring Officer mainly relied upon the evidence of one Mahesh Chandra Rana, who was an ex-Assistant-in-charge of the centre. He has specifically stated that the petitioner was maintaining the ledger in accordance with his instructions. We cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 13.04.1967, when there was no minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Peon. Subsequently, he was given the post of Packer with effect from 08.08.1974. He has specifically stated that the petitioner was maintaining the ledger in accordance with his instructions. We cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 13.04.1967, when there was no minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Peon. Subsequently, he was given the post of Packer with effect from 08.08.1974. In view of this, we cannot think that a Packer would be able to maintain the Cash Book, Sale Register, Stock Book, etc., which is beyond his capability. His duty was to assist the Junior Auditor, but he was not expected to discharge the work of Junior Auditor. Due to this reason, perhaps he was not in a position to maintain the aforesaid Ledgers/Registers, which was the duty of the Junior Auditor as well as the Assistant-in-charge of the Sale Centre, who did not notice that the Ledgers/Registers remained incomplete for a long period, while it was their duty to see the same. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner, who was a Packer, was not to blame, as it was beyond his capability to maintain the aforesaid Ledgers/Registers. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is al¬lowed. All the punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority upon the petitioner are hereby quashed. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal confirming the punishment of treating the period of suspension as such and stoppage of increment is also quashed. I. M. QUDDUSI, J. I agree. Petition allowed.