JUDGMENT : D.G.R. PATNAIK, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the order dated-14.02.2002, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed against the petitioner. Challenge also is to the order dated-19.06.2004, passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority, has been rejected. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, the grounds advanced by the petitioner is that the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority as also that of the appellate authority is illegal and is violative of the principles of natural justice in as much as the impugned orders have been passed without considering the fact that the petitioner was not granted adequate opportunity of being heard. The further ground on which the impugned orders have been assailed is that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. 4. Facts of the petitioner's case lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner was employed as a Driver under the Respondent-S.A.I.L. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on three specific charges, namely, (a) negligence in duty, (b) insubordination and (c) unauthorized use of the Company's property. Before commencing the departmental proceedings, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and he submitted his replies to the show cause notice but being dissatisfied with the explanations offered, the proceedings were commenced against him. In course of departmental proceedings, petitioner was given opportunity to participate and to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Committee after going through the evidences on record, have recorded its finding by holding that the charge of (i) negligence in duty and (ii) the charge of insubordination have not been proved. However, the finding on the third charge has been recorded in the following manner: The third charge i.e. unauthorized use of Company's properly is established to the extent of unauthorized use of the vehicle i.e. Truck, bearing No. BHR 6505 inside the plant on 07.05.1999 for filling diesel in it without any information or authorization of either of the reporting officers. The Enquiry Report with the above findings is submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. Upon perusing the Enquiry Report and the findings contained therein, the Disciplinary Authority recorded the impugned order of punishment by way of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The Enquiry Report with the above findings is submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. Upon perusing the Enquiry Report and the findings contained therein, the Disciplinary Authority recorded the impugned order of punishment by way of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the Appeal was dismissed. 5. I have heard Counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the Enquiry Report as also through the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as that of the Appellate Authority. 6. As it appears from the Enquiry Report, the third charge that the petitioner was found to have unauthorizedly used the vehicle on one date, for plying it within the plant, has been proved. It is contended by counsel for the Respondents that the unauthorized use of the Company's property is an act of gross indiscipline as per the provisions of the Work Standing Order of the Respondent-Company and may also invite the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would argue that the punishment of dismissal has been indicted upon the petitioner upon considering the fact that the vehicle was unauthorisedly unloaded not only for its movement within the plant but also for its movement outside the plant and thereby siphoning off the Company's valuable properties on the Truck outside the plant. Learned Counsel further informs that even as per the prosecution's case, the Truck was seized outside the plant by the Police of Marafari Police Station while the Company's precious materials were being unloaded and a C.B.I. Enquiry in respect of theft of the Company's precious properties in which the use of the vehicle concerned was involved, is presently in progress and these were the grounds which have increased the gravity of the charges against the petitioner inviting the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. 8. From the findings as recorded in the Enquiry Report, it appears that the Prosecution has pleaded that the vehicle was taken out of the plant and the precious materials of the Company were found transferred from inside the plant to outside area but in absence of any specific evidence on this issue, the Enquiry Committee did not find any such material to record that the unauthorized use of the vehicle had extended to its operation beyond the limits of the plant area. As such, the contention that the vehicle was taken out of the plant area by the petitioner by way of its unauthorized use, cannot be accepted in the light of the findings recorded in the enquiry Report. In this view of the matter, the observation in the impugned order that the Truck was used for illegal transportation of precious materials outside the plant is beyond record or at least beyond the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee. Confining his attention only to the findings of the Enquiry Committee on the third charge, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered the punishment, which could have been legitimately and reasonably imposed upon the petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order of punishment is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner to reconsider the entire issue regarding the quantum of punishment, which may be imposed in the light of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee and to pass an appropriate order on the same within three months from the dale of receipt/production of a copy of this order and effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. 10. It shall, nevertheless be open to the Respondent-Company to take any appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law in the event, the petitioner is charge-sheeted for any offence in the criminal case. 11. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.