PARAMESWARAN ELAYIDAM Vs. MUTUAL AID BANKERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, second respondent in the Original Petition, was employed as a Civil Assistant in the first respondent Trust (petitioner in the Original Petition). He was served with a charge sheet containing several charges. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice regarding the charges. The enquiry officer found that only charge No.2 was proved against the appellant. The proved charge was as follows:

(2.) The case of the appellant before the enquiry officer was that an amount of Rs. 8,000/- was received from the judgment debtors in O.S. No. 227 of 1986 before the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, on 15.7.1989 by the Deputy Manager of the employer Trust. According to him, Sri.P.B. Mohankumar, Advocate who appeared for the employer handed over the above amount to the Deputy Manager. The Deputy Manager entrusted the appellant to enter Rs.5,000/- in the accounts and he has entered Rs.5,000/- accordingly. In the enquiry Deputy Manager was examined and he admitted that he received the amount of Rs.8000/- from the Advocate and he asked and Clerk to account for Rs.5000/- and he himself is detaining the balance Rs.3000/-. Therefore, it was the contention of the appellant that there was a specific direction of the Deputy Manager who was the superior to account Rs.5000/- and that was accounted. When Deputy Manager admitted that the balance Rs.3000/- is detained with him there is no misappropriation. The enquiry officer found as follows:

(3.) Against the dismissal order, appellant filed an appeal before the Shop Appellate Authority under S.18(2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the shop appeal was numbered as S.A.No.4 of 1992. The Shop Appellate Authority found that enquiry was conducted fairly and properly. That means there was no denial of opportunity to both sides, employer and employee, to adduce whatever evidence they would like to adduce. But the Shops Appellate Authority found that findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. The Shop Appellate Authority considered the evidence and depositions of the Deputy Manager in cross examination and found as follows: