PREM SINGH Vs. COOPERATIVE STORES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order of his dismissal dated 17.3.2001 passed by the Chairman of Cooperative Stores Limited, known as Super Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The petitioner had been working with the Super Bazar w.e.f. 24.5.1986 and at the relevant time was posted in the Cash Section to Special Mobile Van No.DHL 8150. On 17.2.1994 a stock checking was carried out and thereafter the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 25.11.1994 alleging therein shortage of stock to the tune of Rs.45,652.75 and the shortage was attributed to the petitioner and Mr.Pat Ram, Helper. An inquiry thereafter was instituted. The finding of the Inquiry Officer was against the petitioner. The penalty of dismissal and recovery of Rs.23,111.48 was inflicted on the petitioner. The grounds for challenge listed by the petitioner are that the finding of the Inquiry Officer was contrary to law and material facts and evidence, that the respondent Management did not take into account the relevant records and communication sent by the petitioner and that the principles of natural justice had been violated. The petitioner is also challenging the punishment as being contrary to law. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting all the allegations of the petitioner. It is alleged, inter alia, that the petitioner being incharge of the Mobile Van was responsible for the shortage. The respondent denies that the principles of natural justice were violated during the inquiry. So far as the order of termination is concerned, the same is also supported. It is further contended by the respondent that an order of winding up of Super Bazar has been passed and a Liquidator has been appointed. The Liquidator was subsequently impleaded in the case.

(2.) A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. It is alleged that the shortage in store took place as a result of cheating by Mr.Balraj, Incharge Store Liaison Cell PNB in leage with Mr.Pat Ram and the driver and that in routine goods supplied was short than what was shown on the vouchers. The petitioner reiterates that he was not responsible for any shortage and also not liable to pay any amount towards any such shortage.

(3.) The petitioner challenges his dismissal. The challenge, however, cannot be based on the facts he has alleged in his writ petition and rejoinder. This Court cannot substitute its findings for the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet in respect of shortage and the disciplinary inquiry was initiated in which the petitioner was allowed an opportunity to defend himself. There is no allegation that the petitioner was not allowed full opportunity to defend himself. Nor is there any allegation that there was no evidence before the Inquiry Officer on the basis of which the Inquiry Officer could return a finding against the petitioner. The report of the Inquiry Officer placed on the record shows that the Management had produced witness-T.C.Vashisht who had conducted the surprise stock checking of the Mobile Van No.8150. Mr.T.C.Vashisht was also cross-examined by the petitioner. Other witness examined was Mr.Shiv Parshad, Accounts Assistant. The two charged employees in this case only tried to shift the responsibility on each other. The Inquiry Officer after considering the stand taken by the two charged officials and the evidence produced by the Presenting Officer arrived at a finding that the petitioner was responsible for the shortage.