Judgment : Oral Judgment: (R.S. Dalvi, J.) 1. The Petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the original Petitioner, seek to quash Orders dated 24.04.2005 and 06.12.2005, being the Orders in Appeal and dismissal of the deceased wife of Petitioner no. 1-A. The original Petitioner, the deceased wife of Respondent No.1A, was serving as a cashier in Government Higher Secondary School, Lyceum, Panaji. She was initially placed under suspension pending a departmental inquiry. The departmental inquiry has resulted in her dismissal, and which has been confirmed in appeal. 2. The Petitioners claim that the inquiry has been conducted by an incompetent officer. The Respondents have shown the issue of Notification dated 01.12.2003 by the Additional Director/Vigilance in the name of the Governor of Goa specifying the Deputy Director (Adm) Education Department as the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry against deceased wife of Petitioner no. 1-A. This Notification has been issued pursuant to Notification dated 24.11.2003 empowering the Addl. Director (Vigilance) as Ex-officio Joint Secretary (Vigilance) to issue the Notification with regard to the inquiry against the wife of the Petitioner no. 1-A. The authority conducting the inquiry was, therefore, duly appointed. 3. In the departmental inquiry, five separate charges have been framed against the wife of Petitioner no. 1-A. These relate to the misappropriation and forgery committed by her. The charges show that she, in the capacity as a cashier, made out various challans in triplicate for remitting the amount of undisbursed dues of the teachers and staff of the school to the Government Treasury and misappropriated an amount Rs.52,200/-. It is contended on behalf of the Government that upon receiving further documentary evidence, further such misappropriation has been brought to light which does not even form the part of the chargesheet. The chargesheet further shows forgery committed by her in signing the names of four teachers who were to be paid certain Efficiency Bar (EB) arrears. All the teachers have deposed before the Inquiry Officer that they have not received the amount shown as paid in the forged receipts. 4. The chargesheet further shows forgery committed by her in signing the names of four teachers who were to be paid certain Efficiency Bar (EB) arrears. All the teachers have deposed before the Inquiry Officer that they have not received the amount shown as paid in the forged receipts. 4. Since this Court in the Writ Petition would only require to see whether the inquiry complied with the principles of natural justice by a competent authority and not whether each of the charges would be proved to the extent of the amount mentioned therein, the Court saw the documentary evidence to support the case of misappropriation which is the essence of the charge. 5. We have been shown various challans admittedly written by the wife of the Petitioner no. 1-A as cashier. Her position as cashier and her duty of making the challans prepared by her has not been disputed. The challans had to be made in triplicate. One challan is sent to the Government treasury namely the State Bank of India and which is retained in the Bank. The other two challans duly stamped by the Bank are returned for being kept in the Accounts Department and the School itself. 6. We have been shown two copies of the challans. The challans show specified amount mentioned admittedly by the wife of the Petitioner no. 1-A in words and figures. This is the challan which is retained by the Bank. In the challans which are returned, a larger amount is added before the amount stated in words and figures. To wit :- One challan shows Rs.18/- in words and figures. It is retained by State Bank of India. It shows Rs. 18/-deposited in the Government Treasury. The corresponding challan shows Rs.918/-. The words “nine hundred” are added before the words “eighteen only”. Sufficient space for such addition has been left in the challan showing only Rs.18/- deposited in the Government Treasury. The figure “9” is also added in the stamp of the Bank showing the receipt of the amount under the challan. 7. The learned Government Pleader meticulously showed us various challans showing the blank spaces which a prudent cashier would never leave before writing the words on the challan showing the deposit of the amount. He also showed us the addition of the amount in words as well as figures. 7. The learned Government Pleader meticulously showed us various challans showing the blank spaces which a prudent cashier would never leave before writing the words on the challan showing the deposit of the amount. He also showed us the addition of the amount in words as well as figures. Whereas, sufficient space is left in the challans prepared by the wife of the Petitioner no. 1-A and which is shown to be in the same handwriting, the challans do not show sufficient space for the addition of the figure in the stamp of the Bank. In fact it shows additional space after the figure. A reading of the challans makes it clear that whereas the challan deposited in the Bank shows a lesser amount, the challans which have been returned with the stamp of the Bank show additional amount deposited in the Bank which was in fact not deposited but shown to be deposited to account for such deposits in the accounts of the School where the wife of Petitioner no. 1-A served as cashier and prepared the challans. 8. The Inquiry Proceedings assumed that after suspension of the wife of the Petitioner no. 1-A, the Departmental Inquiry was held in which a number of witnesses deposed, most of them teachers who failed to received their legitimate dues. It shows the lesser amount paid to the teachers and the lesser amount deposited in the Government Treasury and a higher amount shown in the accounts of the School after they were paid. 9. Petitioner no. 1-A, who appeared before us in person, emphasized that his wife had not written the additions. We have compared and verified the documents on record. The challans are in the same handwriting including the addition of the amounts in words and figures as detailed above. These challans make it unmistakenly clear that the case of misappropriation is rightly made out. Consequently, the claim of the Petitioners that the inquiry was biased is unsustainable. The arguments of Petitioner no. 1-A that handwriting expert's opinion has not been obtained, is also of no consequence in view of the comparison done by us as per the mandate under Section 73 of the Evidence Act itself. 10. Petitioner no. 1-A further argued that the Bank reconciliation statement has not been prepared and that the Bank is enjoined to reconcile its accounts at the end of each day. 10. Petitioner no. 1-A further argued that the Bank reconciliation statement has not been prepared and that the Bank is enjoined to reconcile its accounts at the end of each day. This argument also does not avail the Petitioners because the Bank records would indeed show that the account is reconciled in their records since the challans prepared in triplicate show the lesser amount. These challans are also stamped by the Bank. It is only after the challans are returned by the Bank that a larger amount is added and, consequently, the Bank reconciliation has not been affected. The lack of any discrepancies shown by the Bank is, therefore, not only in order but clearly shown by the Petitioners themselves. 11. In view of the above, the Petitioners' case that the suspension and the consequent dismissal was illegal and the entire inquiry being biased was illegal including the chargesheet, cannot be sustained. 12. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs.