JUDGMENT Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 28.9.2000 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service as well as the order passed by the appellate authority on 27.8.02 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was rejected. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the disciplinary action against the petitioner are that the petitioner while posted as Senior Depot Incharge was proceeded with, by issuance of charge sheet dated 5.4.99. The charges relate to an occurrence of loss, shortage or embezzlement of cash detected on 12.10.98. It is alleged that the petitioner due to the absence of the cashier who was jointly operating the chest along with the petitioner, opened the chest in the absence of any other officer and without prior intimation in this regard at the Depot, therefore, was responsible for the alleged loss, shortage or embezzlement of the cash from the locker. 4. The charge sheet levels as many as four charges against the petitioner. The first charge relates to loss, shortage or embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 98,905.11 coupled with the opening of chest unauthorisedly in absence of any other officer and without prior intimation thereof at the Depot. The other charges are with respect to evasion of responsibility by running away from duty on the date of detection of shortage of cash and being in collusion with the cashier so far as the alleged shortage of cash in the locker operated by the petitioner and cashier is concerned. The last charge is to the effect that cash kept in the locker which was operated under double lock system was not duly handled by putting both the locks simultaneously being the responsible officer. 5. After communication of the charge sheet dated 5.4.99, the petitioner filed his reply to the same on 31.8.99. The enquiry officer thereafter proceeded to hold the enquiry by fixing dates. Three dates were particularly fixed by the enquiry officer for recording statements and giving an opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner. On 31.8.99, the enquiry officer called upon one Masood Ali, Assistant Regional Officer (Finance), Lucknow, whose statement was recorded and the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the said witness. Three dates were particularly fixed by the enquiry officer for recording statements and giving an opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner. On 31.8.99, the enquiry officer called upon one Masood Ali, Assistant Regional Officer (Finance), Lucknow, whose statement was recorded and the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the said witness. The relevance of this witness is for the reason that it was he who by letter dated 14.10.98 informed the Regional Manager of the alleged occurrence, shortage/loss and embezzlement of the amount found on 12.10.98 when the petitioner was found to have opened the chest under suspicious circumstances and without prior intimation and permission of any other officer at the Depot. 6. It appears that after recording of the statement of Masood Ali, the enquiry officer was changed and with prior notice regarding change of enquiry officer, the subsequent date by the new enquiry officer was fixed on 26.4.2000. On the date fixed i.e. 26.4.2000, the cashier, Suresh Chandra Agnihotri was examined and the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the cashier, whose liability to handle locker is coextensive for the reason that the chest was to be operated by putting double locks. Thereafter the enquiry officer fixed 11.5.2000 as the next date when the statement of S.N.H. Jaffri, then Station Superintendent was recorded and the petitioner was also allowed to cross-examine. The enquiry officer again fixed 30.6.2000 for recording statement of Sita Ram Chaudhary, then Assistant Regional Manager, Hardoi Depot but on the said date petitioner could not appear for some personal reasons. In order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine Sri Sita Ram Chaudhary, the enquiry officer fixed 19.7.2000 and the petitioner having appeared before the enquiry officer, made a request in writing that he does not wish to cross-examine any other officer and he being satisfied with the enquiry proceedings, prayed that his reply to the charge sheet may be considered to be the final reply to all the charges. 7. The record of disciplinary proceedings shows that apart from the witnesses mentioned above, no other witness was examined and the satisfaction as regards the conclusions drawn in the enquiry report is based on aforementioned material. 8. The petitioner while submitting his reply to the charge sheet has taken a specific stand on all the charges while denying his liability. 7. The record of disciplinary proceedings shows that apart from the witnesses mentioned above, no other witness was examined and the satisfaction as regards the conclusions drawn in the enquiry report is based on aforementioned material. 8. The petitioner while submitting his reply to the charge sheet has taken a specific stand on all the charges while denying his liability. The petitioner in his reply has stated that on 12.10.98 when he went to the office at about 1 O' Clock, he did not find Sri Rahul Chaudhary, Assistant Regional Manager available at the Depot, therefore, Sri S.N.H. Jaffri orally told him that the petitioner may ask for keys through daughter of cashier so as to ensure the deposit of cash in the Bank as the working hours of the Bank are fixed beyond which cash could not be deposited. It is further stated that on receiving keys, he proceeded to open the locker without intimation to and in absence of any senior officer present at the Depot and found that cash was short. The petitioner is said to have informed the Assistant Regional Manager, Hardoi where after, it is stated, he got his statement recorded which was signed by him of his free will. 9. The petitioner in reply to second charge stated that he had duly signed the attendance register as such, the allegation that the petitioner attempted to run away from office without having marked his attendance, was completely false. In respect of third charge, petitioner replied that he had not found any chit received from the cashier nor any such chit was sent to him by the cashier. Likewise, the petitioner also denied the charge of having received salary for the month of September without making necessary signatures in the relevant register. With respect to operation of double lock, the reply submitted by the petitioner was to the effect that cashier had not allowed him to operate the double lock ever since 28.8.98 on the ground that the Assistant Regional Manager (Finance) had failed to verify the cash being kept under double lock system on 28.8.98 when he visited the depot, therefore, the petitioner, who was an officer below in rank, failed to work against the wishes of the cashier. According to the petitioner, the cashier, as a matter of fact, refused to operate the double lock in a manner as prescribed. According to the petitioner, the cashier, as a matter of fact, refused to operate the double lock in a manner as prescribed. The Court summoned the relevant circulars by passing an order on 8.8.2015 where under respective duties are defined by the higher authorities. 10. The charges levelled in the charge sheet as regards mishandling of cash as well as shortage of amount, by their very nature, are serious and reflect upon the integrity and honesty of the concerned officers entrusted with the duty. The framing of such a charge was understood by the Court also seen in the light of relevant circular issued by the Corporation on 5.11.97 and clause (c) of the same, being relevant, is reproduced below: ^^lh & ys[kk lEcU/kh nkf;Ro 1- fMiks dh dS'kcqd dh leLr ckmpjksa ,oa jlhnksa ds lkFk psd djuk] ,oa izfrfnu dS'kcqd can djus ds mijkar viuk gLrk{kjh djukA ekg ds izFke frfFk dks fu;fer :i ls ekfld jksdM+ lR;kiu djuk] rFkk izfrfnu Mcy ykWd lqfuf'pr djukA 2- ;g lqfuf'pr djkuk fd nSfud vk; ,oa vU; NksVs LVs'kuksa dh nSfud vk; dks lgh /kujkf'k] le; ls fu/kkZfjr cSad esa tek gks jgh gSA 3- fMiks bEizsLV o [kqnjk jksdM+ dk ys[kk fu/kkZfjr izi= esa j[kuk lqfuf'pr djuk rFkk le; ls iwfrZ djkuk ftlls fd fMiks dk dk;Z bEiszLV jkf'k u gksus ds dkj.k izHkkfor u gksA 4- vius fMiks ds deZpkfj;ksa dk osru fcy] vuqiwjd fcy th0lh0,0 ,oa ekbyst HkRr] Lis'ky pkVZj fcy] bR;kfn le; ls {ks=h; izcU/k dk;kZy; dks izLrqr djus ds fy;s iwjh rjg ls mRrjnk;h gksaxsA 5- ifjpkydksa ds ekxZ ds ykSVus ds rqjUr i'pkr~ vk; tek djokuk vkSj budh ladfyr lwpuk fu;r le; ij lacaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks HkstokukA** 11. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not assigned the duties of operating double lock but what is disputed is that he was not allowed by the cashier to put double lock w.e.f. 22.8.98 when allegedly some higher officer had also failed to verify the account on his visit due to the absence of cashier. There is no evidence put forth by the petitioner to prove himself not guilty of this charge. There is no evidence put forth by the petitioner to prove himself not guilty of this charge. The enquiry officer on this aspect of the matter has though recorded that several other officers also ought to have ensured operation of double lock punctually but the duty of the petitioner along with cashier being mutually exclusive was established looking to the own admission of the petitioner. The question of responsibility of higher officers would have arisen only if the petitioner, as per the stand taken, would have informed about the negligent behaviour of the cashier to the higher authorities. The enquiry officer on the shortage of cash has recorded a clear finding which could not be disproved by the petitioner on the basis of any evidence, but for the fact that he had opened the chest under the oral permission of the Station Superintendent. The defence set up by the petitioner was not found acceptable in view of the statements recorded by the enquiry officer against which substantially no grievance has been raised by the petitioner. The petitioner having participated in the enquiry does not seem to have raised any grievance as regards reasonable opportunity till the date of submission of the enquiry report on the basis of which a show cause notice was issued to him on 24.8.2000. After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply on 13.9.2000 wherein the petitioner appears to have taken altogether a new stand. The two versions adopted by the petitioner, one at the time of filing reply to the charge sheet and the other while filing reply to the show cause notice, nevertheless clearly demonstrate that his responsibility to operate the double lock was amply owned by him beyond doubt. Once the responsibility of operating the chest under double lock was not disputed by the petitioner, he having opened the locker without intimation and without permission, the petitioner does not stand absolved of the charge in the facts and circumstances of the case, as has rightly been observed by the enquiry officer in his report. 12. The disciplinary authority having considered the matter in the light of the enquiry report based on the statements recorded, has clearly found the petitioner guilty of the alleged shortage of cash, loss and embezzlement. 12. The disciplinary authority having considered the matter in the light of the enquiry report based on the statements recorded, has clearly found the petitioner guilty of the alleged shortage of cash, loss and embezzlement. It is noteworthy that the cashier was also proceeded against and a major punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted upon him but the punishment order which was upheld by the appellate authority on being challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 5463 (SS) of 2000 was quashed on the ground of procedural irregularity, as is evident from the operative part of the order, reproduced below: "In the light of the above said facts and taking into consideration that Shri Ambrish Kumar Shukla was not examined by the enquiry officer in the enquiry proceeding, who is an important and most vital witness in order to find out the truth in the matter in question, so the entire enquiry proceedings as well as the punishment order passed on the said ground vitiates because the said action is in contravention of the principles of natural justice, thus, the impugned order dated 23.9.2000 (Annexure No. 10) passed by opposite party no. 2 is liable to be set aside. However, keeping in view the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank and Others v. Debasis Das and Others (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 557, NTC (WBAB&O) Ltd. v. Anjan K. Saha, (2004) 7 SCC 581 and Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 , the respondents if so advised may hold a fresh enquiry in the matter in question in accordance with law from the stage of submitting the reply by the petitioner to the charge sheet, if the same is done, then enquiry proceeding shall be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and final order be passed, but the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 23.9.2000 (Annexure No.10) passed by opposite party no.2 is set aside. Further, the salary/allowances of the intervening period and consequential benefits payable to the petitioner shall depend upon the result/decision taken by the competent authority in view of the fact as stated above. With the above observation, writ petition is allowed." 13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 23.9.2000 (Annexure No.10) passed by opposite party no.2 is set aside. Further, the salary/allowances of the intervening period and consequential benefits payable to the petitioner shall depend upon the result/decision taken by the competent authority in view of the fact as stated above. With the above observation, writ petition is allowed." 13. On conclusion of the fresh enquiry in terms of the judgment passed by this Court, referred to above, the cashier has been punished with some lesser punishment. 14. The petitioner had also filed an appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 28.9.2000 but the appeal filed by him was rejected. At the appellate stage, it is seen, the petitioner has raised certain grounds on the basis of preliminary report wherein the liability of other persons working at the Depot, being evident in the preliminary report was highlighted and the order of dismissal from service was assailed on the ground of being discriminatory and selective. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Both the orders are a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 15. The petitioner while assailing the impugned orders, laid great emphasis on the joint liability of other officers. The disciplinary action undoubtedly has to proceed fairly and without any discrimination but the foundation of the charges levelled in the charge sheet is directly linked with the discharge of duties by the petitioner. There is no material to demonstrate that the petitioner having acted diligently, has been roped in the alleged charge of collective responsibility to which the petitioner was not related to singly. The petitioner has accepted his responsibility of operating double lock. Failure on his part to operate the double lock in a proper manner and opening of chest without prior intimation and presence of higher officer is apparent. Mishandling and negligence of such an important duty may not be viewed lightly in the facts and circumstances of the present case and it has rightly been judged so by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority. Following case laws were cited by the petitioner: 1. Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84 2. Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another (1999) 7 SCC 739 3. Following case laws were cited by the petitioner: 1. Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84 2. Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another (1999) 7 SCC 739 3. SBI and others v. Arvind K. Shukla (2004) 13 SCC 797 4. Lav Nigam v. Chairman and MD ITI Ltd. And another (2006) 9 SCC 440 5. Civil Appeal No. 1334 of 2013 [arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2070 of 2013]: Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. and others 6. Director General of Police and others v. G. Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407 7. Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds growers Union Ltd. v. Shileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah (2006) 6 SCC 548 . 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to above case laws on various aspects but the propositions laid down therein do not lend any support to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reference to the case laws for exhaustive discussion is unwanted in a situation where the role and duty of a delinquent officer is crystal clear and the misconduct is linked to independent and mutually exclusive duties of a charged officer as is the case at hand. Loss, shortage or embezzlement in whatever form it is described is attributable to the duties directly linked and owned by the petitioner, therefore, viewing the contents of order passed by the disciplinary authority on the yardstick of difference of opinion with the enquiry report is misconceived. 17. Having regard to the material available on record as well as the record of disciplinary proceedings placed before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 18. Ordered accordingly. No order as to cost.