V RAMACHANDRAN Vs. DIRECTOR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 17. 2. 2005 passed by the 2nd Respondent and direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner to his original post of Mess Manager with all back wages and benefits from the date of his suspension dated 13. 6. 2001 till the death of reinstatement.

(2.) BRIEF facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner was appointed as Senior Supervisor on 01. 11. 1972 by Warden, Tapti Hostel. Subsequently, he was promoted as Hostel Manager on 01. 5. 1973. Hostel Manager subsequently termed as Mess Manager. Petitioner is responsible for placing of orders, receiving of supplies from the suppliers, checking of the quality and quantity of price, verification of materials received and making stock entry thereof in the stock ledger. (ii) In the accounts submitted by the Petitioner for the month of November 2000, certain discrepancies were noticed. Petitioner was served with notice dated 12. 1. 2001 calling for his explanations. Petitioner sent his reply. Petitioner was served with Charge Memo dated 16. 4. 2001 alleging that he claimed two payment vouchers on 17. 10. 2000 for the amount of Rs. 1208/- and Rs. 758/- respectively and explanation was called for. Petitioner has sent his reply explaining the things happened on the alleged discrepancy and also procedure to be followed for making payment to the suppliers. Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. V. G. Idichandy, was appointed. Petitioner was placed under suspension from 13. 6. 2001. (iii) Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. V. G. Idichandy, considered all the records including the stock register and issue vouchers. Petitioner was called for enquiry and asked whether he had any points to state other than what was given in writing on 10. 5. 2001 and 26. 5. 2001. After giving opportunity to the Petitioner and not being satisfied with the explanations, punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded to the Petitioner.

(3.) SECOND Respondent filed the counter stating that as a Mess Manager, Petitioner is responsible for purchase of supplies, quality control and verification of stocks. From the Student body a complaint was made to the Warden of Tapti Hostel that some irregularities were associated with the purchase of snacks. According to the 2nd Respondent, Enquiry Committee was duly constituted which has led enquiry as per the disciplinary rules and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner. After enquiry, tentative award of punishment of compulsory retirement was proposed. After calling for explanation from the Petitioner, punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded. According to the Respondents, enquiry was held in substantial compliance with the rules.