PADAMMA; M S NANJEGOWDA Vs. PUTTALAXMAMMA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the workman challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge who has declined to interfere with the punishment imposed for the proved misconduct.

(2.) The appellant-petitioner is working in the purchase department of the respondent company. He was served with a charge memo dated 28/30.9.2004 alleging that he made purchases of certain drugs by paying higher value of Rs.365/- as against the real cost of Rs.50/-. As the explanation offered by him was not satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated. The appellant-petitioner participated in the said enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges are not proved. The disciplinary authority did not accept the said report. Therefore, enclosing a copy of the said report, they issued a second show cause notice calling upon the workman to show cause why action should not be taken against him for the said misconduct. The appellant gave his reply. On consideration of the same, they were of the view that the misconduct alleged against him is proved and therefore they imposed a penalty of treating the period of suspension as punishment.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred a Writ Petition before this Court. The learned single Judge declined to interfere with the said order. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed.