HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD Vs. P G PADMARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O.P. 8711/90 is the appellant. While working as Purchase Officer in Hindustan Latex Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and he was subsequently dismissed from service. That was challenged in the original petition. The learned single Judge by judgment dated 24-4-1991 allowed the petition and setting aside the order of dismissal directed petitioner to be reinstated in service with arrears of salary. Respondents 1 to 3 have come up in appeal.

(2.) Petitioner in the original petition - first respondent herein was employed as Purchase Officer in Hindustan Latex Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. Serious acts of misconduct by tampering with Company's documents at the instance of a supplier of articles to the Company were alleged. Charges were framed against him and an enquiry was conducted. The disciplinary authority did not accept the enquiry report in toto and proposed to modify the same. After informing petitioner about their intention to modify the findings in the enquiry report the disciplinary authority found petitioner guilty of the charges and in consequence dismissed him from service by Ext. P9 order dated 24-4-1990. This order was challenged in the original petition on various grounds. First appellant - first responded in the original petition justified the action taken in the counter affidavit filed by them. The learned single Judge interfered with the order of dismissal mainly on four grounds. (i) Disciplinary authority did not afford an opportunity to the petitioner to state anything regarding the proposed punishment. (ii) The punishment awarded is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. (iii) The finding of the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. (iv) The plea that the management has lost confidence in the petitioner has not been substantiated

(3.) Heard counsel on both sides.