SIVAKUMAR B Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TASMAC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Supervisor in TASMAC Shop No. 1619. He was removed from service by an order dated August 10, 2005. He filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 24391/2007 challenging the order of termination. The said writ petition came to be allowed by order dated July 23, 2007, since his termination was done without due notice. However, he was not directed to be given any back-wages since he challenged the order belatedly and liberty was given to the respondents to pass fresh orders after issuing notice to the petitioner and after conducting an enquiry.

(2.) On such remand, the petitioner was restored to service, but an enquiry notice was given to the petitioner. It was stated that in the enquiry no other witnesses were examined. The petitioner himself appeared and stated that the amounts which were seized from the shop to the extent of Rs. 59,852/-, which was kept in the empty cartons along with the used bottles, were paid back by the three salesmen attached to the shop and the petitioner has no role. Notwithstanding his explanation, he was dismissed from service by order dated December 24, 2007.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The Appellate Authority, by order dated July 17, 2008, dismissed the appeal. It was stated that the petitioner being the Shop Supervisor is alone responsible for whatever irregularities that are found in the shop and therefore, his appeal cannot be entertained.