V.R. SOMWANSHI S/O. RAMARAO Vs. MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN PRODUCTS LTD., MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN PRODUCTS LTD. AND CHAIRMAN AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN PRODUCTS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the order of termination dated 25.1.2006 - annexure H; the Minutes of the Board Meeting held on 26.5.2006 - annexure S; the show cause notices dated 8/11.9.2006 and 23/26.9.2006 - annexures N and P; the order dated 20.3.2007 -annexure A4 passed by the 2nd Respondent and also the orders dated 28.5.2007 and 29.6.2007 annexures A 6 & 7 passed by the 2nd Respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Factory Manager by the 1st Respondent Company during 1988. The 2nd Respondent is the management and disciplinary authority. 3rd Respondent is the appellate authority. Petitioner was in charge of Doddaballapur Unit and during 1999 when one R.B. Agwane, Government Officer was appointed to make a general investigation regarding non -supply/inadequate supply and supply of low quality energy food and energy food mixes, on the ground that the State has suffered loss, a Report was given finding fault in the supply of energy food and energy food mixes. It is stated, no individual officer is held responsible as per the Report. Based on this report, internal inquiry was instituted by the 1st Respondent during 2001 appointing a retired District Judge regarding possibility of wheat being sold in the open market for profit in which the Petitioner was also notified and he had participated. The Inquiry Officer gave a report stating that there is no apparent mistake or negligence on the part of the Petitioner in lifting Wheat and supplying it to the private miller and getting it converted into (sic) or weaning food on time. However, it is stated there is no delay in supply during the relevant period 1993 -96. Based on the second Report, show cause notice was issued during December 2001 for which reply was given, on framing charges. During January 2004, Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against the Petitioner and three more persons who were holding posts.

(3.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.