RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ---This appeal has been filed against order No. 16 for the year 1993-94, dated 8-6-1994 whereby the appellant was dismissed from the service.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service in Forest Department as Chowkidar on 1-11-1990 on the night intervening 13/14 March, 1994 a Computer and a Printer were stolen from the Office of the Conservator Range Land Division. On the basis of said theft the appellant was charge-sheeted on 26-3-1994 and after the completion of the inquiry the appellant was dealt with as stated above.
3. The respondents have filed their written objections and denied the contents of appeal.
4. A replication on behalf of appellant has also been filed.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
6. It has been frankly conceded by the counsel for appellant that the inquiry conducted against the appellant was in order and appellant could be punished for the misconduct he had committed.
The learned counsel, however, pleaded that the penalty of dismissal from service is very harsh against a low-paid Government employee.
7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the plea of counsel for appellant. From the statement made by the appellant before this Tribunal it transpires that on the fateful day the appellant was performing his duties as Chowkidar. It is stated by the appellant that on account of heavy rain and wind the appellant went inside a room to avoid the cold and rain and in the morning he found that the bolt of the door was broken. The appellant was primarily posted as Chowkidar and in this capacity he is expected to remain vigilant and alert in the performance of his duties. In the middle of March there is not much of cold in this region. The appellant tried to makeup a story, which was not accepted by the Superior Authorities of the Department. The civil servants are lacking in observance of service discipline and further indulgence on the part of this Tribunal in a matter of discipline and proper service conduct may lead to disastrous results. There appears no valid reasons to consider the matter for lesser penalty. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.