JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee for the petitioner and learned G.A., Mr. T. Dutta Majumder for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had been working as a Storekeeper and was posted as In-charge of Transit Go-down No.6 at Dharmanagar under the Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Tripura. By Memo.No.F.2-6(2)-DF/2006 dated 15.07.2006, a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner on the following article of charge: “ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I That, Shri Monorajan Majumder while in the charge of Transit Food Godown No.6(Six) under Deputy Director(Food), Dharmanagar Sub-Division in North Tripura during the period from 06-10-2004 to 28-07-2005 exhibited gross dereliction of duty, absolute carelessness, lack of integrity and devotion to duty entrusted with him by way of not maintaining the books of accounts and other records properly thereof in the manner prescribed/instructed by the competent Authority which is unbecoming on the part of a Government Servant and amounts to gross misconduct. By resorting to such activities with malafide intention to derive personal benefit, said Shri Monorajan Majumder Store-Keeper misappropriated 13045.335 Kgs rice, money value of which put together comes to Rs.1,23,930.68(Rupees One Lakh Twenty-three thousand Nine hundred thirty & paisa Sixty-eight) only. These sorts of activities on the part of said Sri Majumder, Store-Keeper of Transit Food Godown No.6(Six), Dharmanagar attract Rule-3 of Tripura Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1988 and action thereof under Central Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.” The statement of imputations as annexed as Annexure-II to Memo. dated 15.07.2006 reads thus: “STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI MONORANJAN MAJUMDER STORE-KEEPER, TRANSIT FOOD GODOWN NO.6(SIX), UNDER DEPUTY DIRECTOR(FOOD), DHARMANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, NORTH TRIPURA. That, Shri Monoranjan Majumder, Store-Keeper while functioning as Store-Keeper in Transit Food Godown No.6(Six) under Deputy Director(Food), Dharmanagar Sub-Division in North Tripura during the period from 06-10-2004 to 28-07-2005 was entrusted with the task of maintenance of stock of Rice with proper entry in the concerned books of account. As a godown-in-Charge(Store-Keeper), he had to maintain Bin Card and Bin Card register for each and every incoming and outgoing stock and also to issue SAV for the stock found short or excess, as also to maintain gunny bag register and make proper entry of account of empty gunny bags. As a godown-in-Charge(Store-Keeper), he had to maintain Bin Card and Bin Card register for each and every incoming and outgoing stock and also to issue SAV for the stock found short or excess, as also to maintain gunny bag register and make proper entry of account of empty gunny bags. It is found that during the physical verification of the said Transit Food Godown Food No.6(Six) for the period from 06-10-2004 to 28-07-2005 when Shri Monoranjan Majumder, was the godown in-Charge(Store-Keeper) of the said godown that there was abnormal shortage of various items as per SAVs issued by him which are detailed below:- Sl. SAV No. & date Commodity Total Shortage In Kg Rate In P/Kg. Value 1. 1/SK-TG-6DMN/gr.AR/2005-2006 dated 25-07-2005 Grade “A” Raw Rice 7320 @.Rs.9.50 Rs.69,540.00 2. 2/SK-TG-6DMN/gr.AR/2005-2006 dated 28-07-2005 Grade “A” Raw Rice 5725.335 @.Rs.9.50 Rs.54,390.68 Total 13045.335 Rs.1,23,930.68 The above said shortages amounting to Rs.1,23,930.68=(Rupees One Lakh Twenty-three thousand Nine hundred thirty & paisa Sixty-eight) only in respect of Transit Food Godown No.6(Six), Dharmanagar during the pertaining period were attributable to gross negligence, carelessness and fraudulent activities of the said Sri Monoranjan Majumder, Store-Keeper. The said Shri Monoranjan Majumder, Store-Keeper did not maintain the books of accounts and other relevant papers, like, Bin Card Register, SAV properly etc. with malafide intention to mislead the Authority to derive his personal benefits which caused loss to the Govt. and …Sri Mamumder, Store-Keeper exhibited thereby lack of integrity, devotion to duty in violation of the instructions of the competent/superior authority which are unbecoming on the part of a Govt. Servant.” The documents on which the disciplinary authority relied mentioned in Annexure-III and the witnesses in Annexure-IV to Memo. dated 15.07.2006. 3. The petitioner submitted his written statement in response to the said Memo. dated 15.07.2006 inter alia contending that the charge was baseless and far from the actual fact. He discharged his duties with all sincerity and integrity and cannot be held liable for the shortage as found during physical verification of stock in the food go-down by the verifying officer. In support of his defence he enclosed the following documents, namely— (i) Verification Report of T.G. godown No.6 conducted by the Deputy Collector(Verifying Officer) along with the statements in proforma ‘A’ and ‘B’ dated 25/08/2005(four copies). In support of his defence he enclosed the following documents, namely— (i) Verification Report of T.G. godown No.6 conducted by the Deputy Collector(Verifying Officer) along with the statements in proforma ‘A’ and ‘B’ dated 25/08/2005(four copies). (ii) His letter dated 08/08/2003 addressed to the Deputy Director, Food, Civil Supplies and consumer Affairs, Dharmanagar(two sheets) (iii) Joint applications submitted by 5(five) storekeepers Transit godowns including him on different dates i.e. on 12/01/2005, 19/01/005 and 20/04/2005(three sheets) each separately. It was submitted by the petitioner that the verifying officer in his comment, in the verification report, clearly indicated the reasons for which shortage has been occurred and specifically stated that it was reasonable. He also stated that he maintained all necessary books of accounts, records and documents and the allegation that he did not maintain the records, books of accounts, etc. was not correct. He also contended that the weighbridge was defective and that was reported to the Deputy Director, Food, Dharmanagar for removing the defects and because of such defective weighbridge the alleged shortage had occurred. He again stated that shortage to the extent of 0.5 percent was acceptable as per Memo. dated 14.03.1989. 4. After receipt of that written statement of the petitioner the disciplinary authority decided to inquire into the matter and accordingly sent the records to the Addl. Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, Government of Tripura for conducting the inquiry as per Rule 14 of CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965. 5. In course of inquiry, the listed witnesses of the disciplinary authority i.e. PW1 Gopika Ranjan Das, the Deputy Director of Food, Dharmanagar as he then was, and PW2 Sankar Sarkar, the Deputy Collector & Magistrate, Dharmanagar who conducted the physical verification/inspection of the transit godown were examined and the verification report dated 31.08.2005 submitted by PWs 1 and 2 on the basis of which the disciplinary proceeding was drawn up was exhibited as Exbt.S/1 series. 6. The crux of the allegation against the petitioner was that at the time of physical verification of transit go-down No.6, to which the petitioner was In-charge during the period from 06.10.2004 to 28.07.2005, there was a shortage of 13045.335 Kgs. of rice valued Rs.123930.68 and thereby the petitioner committed misconduct by way of causing loss to the Government. 7. The Inquiring Authority submitted his report on 31.03.2008 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner as proved. of rice valued Rs.123930.68 and thereby the petitioner committed misconduct by way of causing loss to the Government. 7. The Inquiring Authority submitted his report on 31.03.2008 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner as proved. The petitioner submitted his representation against the report to the disciplinary authority but the disciplinary authority by impugned order dated 23.07.2008 held the petitioner guilty of misconduct of the charge framed against him and imposed the following penalty on the petitioner: “5. However, I have decided to impose statutory penalty upon the A.O as per C.C.S.(C.C.&A) Rules, 1965 after considering the facts of the case. Accordingly, I order to impose statutory penalty upon the A.O as follows:- (i) Recovery of the entire amount of pecuniary loss to the Govt. worth Rs.1,23,930.68(Rupees one lac twenty three thousand nine hundred thirty and sixty-eight paise only at the monthly rate of Rs.1430/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred thirty) only from his salary commencing from the month of July, 2008 payable in August, 2008 till 100% recovery of loss is made from the said Sri Monoranjan Majumder, Store-Keeper. (ii) His pay would stand reduced by 2(two) stages for a period of 2(two) years w.e.f. July, 2008 with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay.” 8. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department of the Government of Tripura and the appeal was dismissed by order dated 26.09.2008(Annexure-10 to the writ petition). 9. Hence, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition challenging the order of punishment passed by the Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs dated 23.07.2008(Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner & Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department of the Government of Tripura passed in Appeal Case No.03/2008 and prayed for setting aside those orders and further prayed for directing the respondents to restore the petitioner in his original position prior to order dated 26.07.2008 and to refund the money which has already been realized from his salary. 10. Respondents by filing counter affidavit contended that it is admitted by the petitioner that there was huge shortage of 13045.335 Kgs. 10. Respondents by filing counter affidavit contended that it is admitted by the petitioner that there was huge shortage of 13045.335 Kgs. of rice valued Rs.123930.68 and the petitioner could not assign any reason for such huge shortage. Shortage was admissible not exceeding to 0.5 percent in a particular consignment for a period not less than one year. According to the respondents, all opportunity was afforded to the petitioner in respect of the charges framed against him and the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view in respect of punishment. So, this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review need not interfere in the action taken by the disciplinary authority. 11. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was working as Store-keeper of Dharmanagar Transit Food Go-down No.6 under the Deputy Director, Food, Dharmanagar Sub-Division, North Tripura during the period from 06.10.2004 to 28.07.2005. It is also an admitted fact that physical verification of stock of the said go-down was made by the Deputy Collector, Dharmanagar i.e. PW2 Sankar Sarkar for the period from 06.10.2004 to 28.07.2005 and the verification was conducted on 25.08.2005 in presence of the petitioner and PW2 submitted the report which was forwarded by PW1 with his endorsement to the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs on 31.08.2005. That report is the crux of the proceeding against the petitioner. The report has been proved as Exbt.S/1 series before the inquiring authority. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee that the report has been submitted in a prescribed format by the inspecting officer forwarded by the Deputy Director, Food with endorsement and that has to be read as a whole. In the prescribed column it has been clearly mentioned that the shortage was because of certain reasons and that was reasonable. While the entire proceeding is based on that report, that part of the observation made by the inspecting officer and forwarded by the Deputy Director, Food cannot be ignored and there is no other evidence on record to justify the punishment. 13. Learned G.A., Mr. Majumder has submitted that the shortage found at the time of inspection is an admitted position. So, burden was on the petitioner to prove that he had no lapse. He has also submitted that as per the Memo. 13. Learned G.A., Mr. Majumder has submitted that the shortage found at the time of inspection is an admitted position. So, burden was on the petitioner to prove that he had no lapse. He has also submitted that as per the Memo. issued by the State Government, only 0.5 percent shortage is permissible if the consignment remained in store for a period not less than one year. The petitioner could not show any material that the consignment was in the store for more than one year and so the finding of the inquiring authority on the charges and the ultimate punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority was justified. 14. It is an admitted position that there is no procedural defect in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner was afforded all permissible opportunities as per rules. General burden lies on the prosecution i.e. the disciplinary authority to prove the charges. According to learned G.A., the prosecution discharged its duty by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence and while the disciplinary authority has taken a decision on the basis of the materials on record this Court is not required to interfere in the punishment order. 15. I am aware that the power of judicial review of the decision of a domestic Tribunal is very limited. Such judicial review is possible only when the principles of natural justice has been violated i.e. the opportunities, which ought to be given to the delinquent, as per rules, were not given or that the decision of the domestic Tribunal was based on no evidence and that the punishment inflicted is shocking to the judicial conscience. If there is no glaring violation of principles of natural justice and there is some evidence to support the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, the Court or Tribunal cannot sit as a matter of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence and to substitute the finding of the disciplinary authority with its own findings. 16. Keeping in mind the above settled position of law, let me see whether there is any evidence on record to hold that the petitioner was guilty of his conduct. In the admitted position of the facts brought on record, no doubt, shortage in the stock of the foodgrains in the go-down would amount to misconduct on the part of the petitioner who was the Storekeeper of the Food go-down. In the admitted position of the facts brought on record, no doubt, shortage in the stock of the foodgrains in the go-down would amount to misconduct on the part of the petitioner who was the Storekeeper of the Food go-down. The shortage is admitted but according to the petitioner it was not for his contribution of any misconduct and/or negligence but it was for other reasons as indicated in Exbt.S/1 series. 17. Let us now see what evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution i.e. the disciplinary authority. The statement of witnesses has not been annexed in the writ petition and the respondents also did not annex it with their counter affidavit. Learned G.A. produced the original records of the proceeding at the time of hearing, wherein the deposition of PWs 1 and 2 is found and perused. PW1 Gopika Ranjan Das in his statement before the disciplinary authority stated— “When the Accused Officer was posted at Dharmanagar Transit Go-down no.6 as Store-keeper, I was holding the charge of Dy. Director, Food. During my incumbency as Dy. Director, Food, Dharmanagar Sub-Division, the then Dy. Collector namely Sri Sankar Sarkar conducted the physical verification of the transit go-down no.6 at Dharmanagar for the period from 6.10.2004 to 28.7.2005. After physical verification of the concerned go-down the then Dy. Collector Mr. S. Sarkar submitted his report to me supported by proforma-A, proforma-B, 8 Nos. Bin card(photocopy), 2 Nos. SAVs. On receipt of those materials, I perused the same and passed my comments on two SAVs and thereafter I forwarded those materials to the Director, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs. Let those documents be marked as Exbt.S/1 series. Cross-Examination:- Declined.” PW2 Sankar Sarkar in his deposition made the following statement— “During the relevant period I was holding the post of Deputy Collector and Magistrate. As per direction of SDM, Dharmanagar I conducted physical verification of Go-down N.6 at Dharmanagar for the period 6-10-04 to 28-7-05. At that time A.O. was the In-charge of the concerned Go-down. After conducting the physical verification I submitted my inspection report along with proforma ‘A’ and ‘B’, 2 nos. SAVs, Bean Card(photo copy), to the Dy. Director, Food, Dharmanagar. Witness identified the Exbt.S/1 series. During my inspection of the said go-down I detected shortage of Gr-A raw rice actual quantity of 13045.335 kgs. as per cent percent weighment. After conducting the physical verification I submitted my inspection report along with proforma ‘A’ and ‘B’, 2 nos. SAVs, Bean Card(photo copy), to the Dy. Director, Food, Dharmanagar. Witness identified the Exbt.S/1 series. During my inspection of the said go-down I detected shortage of Gr-A raw rice actual quantity of 13045.335 kgs. as per cent percent weighment. Cross-Examination:- Generally always no staff of Food department remain present at the time of weithment of loaded truck by weighment bridge of FCI.” 18. It appears that Exbt.S/1 series is the document which is the basis of the disciplinary proceeding. Copy of Exbt.S/1 series filed by the petitioner marked as Annexure-5 to the defence statement of the petitioner. In the record produced by the learned G.A. also we find the said document(Exbt.S/1 series) i.e. the inspection report submitted by PW2 Sankar Sarkar in the prescribed format. That inspection report was signed by the petitioner also. Column 12 of proforma-‘A’ of the prescribed formats prescribes for giving the cause of shortage as per mention of SAVs. In that column, the inspecting officer recorded thus— “PROFORMA-‘A’ (12) Shortage occurred due to wastage at the time of loading and unloading for torn bags driage weightment discrepancy, weightment discrepancy also occurred due to wet trucks by rain water long storage of grade a raw rice rat burbles and bird trubles and also pilferage way from F.C.I to Transit godown etc.” Same comment recorded in another form of proforma-‘A’. In proforma-‘B’ in respect of reasons of shortage in column 13 the inspecting officer recorded the following— “PROFORMA-‘B (13) Shortage occurred due to wastage at the time of loading and unloading for torn bags driage weightment discrepancy, weightment discrepancy also occurred due to wet trucks by rain water long storage of grade a raw rice rat burbles and bird trubles and also pilferage way from F.C.I to Transit godown etc.” In his comment, the inspecting officer recorded thus— “Comments: As per my practical observation shortage occurred against stock of food grains and ECS. Due to following main reasons. 1. Wastage occurred at the time of receipt of food grains from the F.C.I point to the state in transit godown and again from the state food grains to the outline godown. 2. shortage also occurred due to reading variations between automatic reading 20 M.T.F.C.I weight bridge and the normal reading State food weight bridge. 3. 1. Wastage occurred at the time of receipt of food grains from the F.C.I point to the state in transit godown and again from the state food grains to the outline godown. 2. shortage also occurred due to reading variations between automatic reading 20 M.T.F.C.I weight bridge and the normal reading State food weight bridge. 3. Shortage also occurred due to long storage of grade a raw rice in our state food godown. 4. Shortage also occurred due to pilferage and due to torn bags. 5. Holes created due to hooking at the time of receipt and delivery of food grains also is sustainable reasons for loss of food grains. 6. It is also a major factor of variation of weight bridge, weight receipt of food grains and E.C.S by F.C.I. weight bridge and dispatch by state weight bridge. Graduation of F.C.I Dharmanagar weight bridge is 50 K.G. and state weight bridge is 10 K.G. as per standards of weight and measures(general) rules, 1987 weight corresponding to one half the interval between consecutive graduation short. This limit is per admissible limit as per aforesaid rules. Hence, the shortage found here are reasonable.” Exbt.S/1 series was countersigned by the Dy. Director i.e. PW1 with his following comment— “Cause of shortage is reasonable. SAVs within permissible limit. So may be accepted.” 19. This Exbt.S/1 series was forwarded to the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs by the Deputy Director i.e. PW1 vide his letter dated 31.08.2005 and on the basis of that verification report only the disciplinary proceeding was drawn up. While the verification/inspection report itself is with the reason that the shortage is reasonable and it was for some specific reason, I am at a loss to understand as to on the basis of what evidence the petitioner has been found guilty of the charge. The inspection report shows that the last physical verification was done on 05.10.2004. To show that there was no shortage at the time of the earlier verification and that the shortage was during the period of verification alone, no evidence adduced on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The allegations made in the charge and in the Memorandum of imputations that books of accounts were not properly maintained, Bin card register and SAVs, etc. were not properly maintained, as I find was baseless since there is no such evidence on record. The allegations made in the charge and in the Memorandum of imputations that books of accounts were not properly maintained, Bin card register and SAVs, etc. were not properly maintained, as I find was baseless since there is no such evidence on record. Rather Exbt.S/1 series shows that SAVs were issued and Bin card maintained properly which is evident in the very first page of Exbt.S/1 series. While there is no specific evidence at all that there was no shortage found in the earlier inspection and that the shortage was caused deliberately during the period from 06.10.2004 to 28.07.2005 by the petitioner and there was no reason for the shortage except that of negligence, inaction or any other reason contributed by the petitioner, I am of considered opinion that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is based on no cogent evidence. The inspection report submitted by PWs 1 and 2 which is the basis of the disciplinary proceeding cannot be read and accepted in part. It has to be read and accepted as a whole including that of the reasons assigned by the inspecting officer for the alleged shortage. There is no statement made by PWs 1 and 2 that the reasons for the shortage made by them and the comments recorded by them were not justified to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. 20. In view of the discussions made above, I am of considered opinion that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner was practically based on no cogent evidence and hence the order inflicting punishment is liable to be interfered and set aside. 21. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the disciplinary authority(Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the appellate authority are set aside and quashed. The amount if any recovered from the petitioner pursuant to those orders shall be returned to the petitioner within 90(ninety) days from today, otherwise, it shall carry interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of recovery. The petitioner also should be placed in his original position of his service immediately with all service benefits to which he is entitled before the punishment order was passed. 22. The files which were submitted by learned Government Advocate be returned to him.