Disciplinary penalty for misappropriation upheld where the officer's misconduct was graver than a co-employee's and punishment was not disproportionate.

Misappropriation of salary deductions and failure to maintain proper cash custody justified disciplinary action against the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, who was required to keep non-Government money in a separate account, verify daily balances, make proper register entries, and ensure safe custody. The Court held that the misconduct proved against the petitioner was more serious than that of the cashier, so the fact that the co-employee received a lesser punishment did not make the petitioner's penalty illegal or disproportionate. The disciplinary and tribunal orders were therefore upheld, with no interference warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary penalty imposed on the petitioner for misappropriation and failure to maintain proper cash custody was disproportionate or otherwise liable to be interfered with, particularly because another employee involved in the same matter received a lesser punishment.

Analysis: The enquiry and disciplinary authority found that cash deducted from employees' salaries was not remitted under the proper heads, resulting in misappropriation. The petitioner, as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, had a duty to maintain a separate account for non-Government money, verify the daily balance, ensure proper entry in the registers, and keep the cash in safe custody. The Court noted that the misconduct proved against the petitioner was distinct in gravity from that attributed to the cashier, and the mere fact that the co-employee received a lesser penalty did not make the petitioner's punishment illegal or disproportionate.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be just and proper, and no interference with the disciplinary or tribunal orders was warranted.

---