USHA KUMAR Vs. SUPER BAZAR CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an award dated 27th of Nov., 1980, of the Labour Court finding that the order dated 29th of April, 1977, passed by respondent no.1 dismissing the petitioner from service was valid and justified.

(2.) The petitioner was employed in the Super Bazar Co-operative Store Ltd., New Delhi, some time in 1967. On 9th of Sept., 1976, she was placed under suspension. A disciplinary enquiry was started against her on the allegation that on 9th of Sept., 1976, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Manager (Stores), during the course of his visit to the Books and Stationery Store, noticed a demand and Issue Voucher No. 62663, dated 6th of Sept., 1976, with respect to two items, among others, of big and small slip pads showing issue of those goods to one Ms. Batra, a Junior Supervisor of the selling department, against signatures of the said Ms. Batra even though the goods were neither received by the store nor by the selling department; whereas under the procedure, the petitioner should have checked the goods first and only then issued the same to the selling department against a proper receipt. In defence, the petitioner urged that on the 6th of Sept., 1976, Ms. Batra came to the store department with a demand for issuing some items, that in the meantime, Mr. I.S. Aggarwal, the purchase officer, along with the supplier of slip pads, also came there; that Mr. I.S. Aggarwal directed Ms. Batra to indent the slip pads in her demand stating that the supplier had brought those items; that on the instructions of Mr. Aggarwal, Ms. Batra made the indent there and then; and that the petitioner also gave the control number in respect of the goods on the in- voice/voucher on the orders of Mr. Aggarwal. Further, the petitioner contended that on 9th of Sept., 1976, when Batra informed her that the slip pads had not been given by the supplier, the petitioner immediately reported the matter to Mr. S.K. Sharma, Manager (Stores).

(3.) The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against her. The disciplinary authority, by order dated 29th of April 1977, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and recorded his opinion that the misconduct committed by the petitioner is of a very serious nature. Therefore, he dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 9th Sept., 1976, the date from which the petitioner was placed under suspension.