S R KRISHNAN Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. It was his claim that the plaintiff was a permanent employee of the defendant, which is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and that he had put in more than 9 years of service in various capacities and he was working as a Deputy Manager (Recovery) as on the date of the suit. According to him, he had maintained blemishless record of service with the defendant. And when he was working as a Deputy Manager at the Administrative office of the defendant at Bengaluru, he was kept under suspension by order dated 13.7.2000 pending inquiry on certain charges. A charge sheet is said to have been filed on 16.7.2001. The charge sheet was in relation to certain refund amounts to a subscriber who had discontinued the transaction and a cheque for a sum of Rs.59,618/- drawn in favour of one Srinivas was said to have been tampered and the account payee endorsement was cancelled and the same was converted into a bearer cheque. And it was the allegation that the plaintiff had managed to appropriate the amount covered under the cheque in his favour and indicated that the subscriber had been paid the admissible amount.

(2.) It was further alleged that the plaintiff acting in collusion with one Gangadhar Babu, the General Manager at the Malleshwaram Branch-I, had drawn the amount from the bank in the name of the subscriber and the amount was misappropriated.

(3.) The defendant had entered appearance and had sought to justify its actions and had pointed out that the plaintiff willfully abstained from inquiry even after receiving notice and that the defendant had already filed criminal cases against the plaintiff in CC 8152/2001 and 8275/2001 before the court of the Magistrate and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed and the suit ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable. Even on merits, the plaintiff had accepted his guilt of having signed the cheque in question, clearly indicating his conduct of having misappropriated funds of the company by playing fraud and that admittedly, the plaintiff had received the notice of the inquiry and had willfully abstained from same. The specious plea that he was awaiting further date of hearing is, therefore, not tenable and cannot be cited as to the inquiry being not in accordance with law and hence sought dismissal of the suit.