GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING CSD CANTEEN Vs. K.KALYANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award under challenge in the present writ petition is to a reinstatement of the first respondent herein together with 50 % of back wages.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the first respondent was engaged as an Assistant Manager in the petitioner's canteen. While in service, it is alleged that he had remitted a sum of Rs.86,894/- in the Bank of India, as against the total sale proceeds of Rs.96,893/-. Since he had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- short of the total amount, after a lapse of twelve days of the collection, he was initially suspended from service from 20.06.2000 and ultimately terminated on 09.07.2000. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent herein was temporarily appointed as an Assistant Manager through appointment letter dated 20.10.1994, on condition that the service can be terminated at any time without any prior notice. Pursuant to the appointment, the first respondent had also given an affidavit dated 03.04.1999, undertaking to continue as a casual labour temporarily for a period of ten months commencing from 01.02.1999 to 30.11.1999 and that the petitioner can relieve him from his service during that period, without any notice. Since the petitioner had deposited the sale proceeds to the tune of Rs.86,894/- after a lapse of twelve days from the actual collections, his case was investigated and the investigation report also revealed that the first respondent had admitted to the misuse of an amount of Rs.10,000/- and therefore, based on the suggestion of the Investigation Officer that his service can be terminated, the impugned order dated 09.07.2000 came to be passed. It is further submitted that since the first respondent herein was appointed purely on temporary basis and the terms of his appointment also states that he can be relieved from service without any prior notice or show cause notice, no enquiry was conducted in his case. According to him, such a principle has been laid down in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the documents produced before the Industrial Tribunal, it is established that the first respondent had misappropriated the funds for a temporary period by wrongly filling up the challan, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal, does not suffer from any infirmity. Since the Industrial Tribunal has also observed that an enquiry was conducted by the management, there is no violation of principles of natural justice.