Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

796
disciplinary authority. Under the circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner in this behalf is without
any foundation.
15. In so far as Aibawk Case is concerned, the contention of the petitioner must also meet the
same fate. The case of the defendant is clearly dealt with by the Inquiry Officer at page 16 & 17 of the
enquiry report. The Inquiry Officer, after discussing the case of both the petitioner and the State has
found that at the time of handing over of the charge by the officer, there was a shortage of Rs.2,52,630/
- and that the petitioner could not show any documentary or oral evidence to the effect that he had
taken sufficient effort to regularize these expenditure before he left Aibawk on transfer. He also found
that the petitioner had nowhere mentioned that he had left any record of such expenditure which he
claimed to be incurred with his successor to enable him to pursue the matter. The certificate, that is
exhibit D-1, D-2 and D-3 issued by DW-1 to show the minutes of the DPC meeting held in 1993
evidencing some expenditure incurred by the petitioner was missing account was disbelieved by the
Inquiry officer on the ground that this certificate were not based on the factual data but on presumption.
The Inquiry Officer also held that the statement of the petitioner that the cash was handled by the then
Cashier, who also kept the keys and maintained the Cash Book and that he was simply signing the
Cash Book, could not be believed. In fact, according to the Inquiry Officer, this circumstance proved
that the petitioner was not aware of his responsibilities as DDO. The question then is whether the view
taken by the Inquiry Officer can be upset by this court in a writ jurisdiction. It is an equally settled law
that the finding of disciplinary authority cannot be interfered with by this court unless the finding is
perverse or based on no evidence and that if there are two possible views on the matter, the view of
the disciplinary authority cannot be interfered with. The view held by the Inquiry Officer in the instant
case is a possible view based on record and cannot be interfered with by this court. Therefore, the
contention of the petitioner on this court also fails.
Mizoram PSC
16. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has
been acquitted from the criminal case, which is based on the same acts and are to be proved by the
same witnesses and documents, the further proceedings of the departmental enquiry and the passing
of the impugned order are unwarranted and not tenable in law. It is true that the criminal case relates
to Thenzawl Case of the instant proceeding. There can also be no dispute that the fact of the case are
identical in nature and that the evidences are also one and the same. However, it must be noted that
the criminal case ended in the acquittal of the petitioner on the ground of lack of evidence or default in