MAHENDER SINGH Vs. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 20thOctober, 1984 of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed theappeal of the respondent and set aside the judgment and decree dated 3/10/1983, passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi.

(2.) . The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed to the post ofSuperintendent of the respondent Corporation vide order dated 4th May, 1978. Hewas put on probation and it was specified in the letter of appointment that theservices of the appellant will be governed by Central Warehousing Corporation(Staff) Regulations, as in force from time to time. The relevant provisions ofregulations, which are necessary for the purpose of decision of this appeal areRegulations 7 and 10. Regulation 7 deals with probation and Regulation 10 dealswith termination of service and the same may be reproduced as follows:

(3.) . The appellant, as stated above, was appointed on probation on 4/05/1978. He was to work on probation for a period of one year from the date ofappointment which was extendable for a period not exceeding one year, as providedin Regulation 7. The appellant was put on probation for a period of one year w.e.f. 24/06/1978, when he joined the service. It was averred in the plaint that there wasa theft in the warehouse at Dasna. It was further alleged that the appellant himselflodged the necessary F.I.R. under intimation to the Department. The case was closedfor lack of evidence. It was reported by the Regional Manager that the appellant wasinvolved in this theft of 47bags of wheat and the Superintendent of Police also statedin his report that the appellant was responsible for this loss. The respondentextended the period of probation by order dated 5/03/1980. This order isreproduced as under: