UTTAM JAGANNATHRAO BODKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as Accounts Officer under the respondent No. 2 Corporation and he has brought in question the legality and propriety of the order of termination dated 31st December, 1989 issued by the Managing Directing of respondent No. 2.

(2.) ON completion of his graduation the petitioner came to be appointed as Accounts Assistant under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited which is now called as Cotton Growers Marketing Federation and he joined the employment of respondent No. 2 on 15th April, 1976. He came to be promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Grade-II with effect from 1st October, 1976 and he was given the reward of annual increment with effect from 1st October, 1977. He was further promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Grade-I with effect from 9th October, 1983 and the reward of extra increment was granted to him with effect from 1st April, 1976 in appreciation of his performance. He was issued a show cause notice firstly on 31st October, 1988 and a second show cause notice on 6th December, 1988. He submitted his reply to the first show cause notice on 18th October, 1988 and to the second show cause notice on 12th December, 1988. Before this, by office order dated 29th August, 1988, he was transferred as Accounts Officer, Amrawati factory on administrative ground and he was called upon to hand over the charge to the Regional Manager, Parbhani and proceed to Amrawati factory for relieving Shri Ambrose Leo. Pursuant to this order he went to Amrawati, for reporting but he was not allowed to join the duties due to the acts attributable to a group of workers in the said factory. This was brought to the notice of the management by the petitioner himself and vide office order dated 13th October, 1988 he was directed to proceed on compulsory leave for two months pending detailed inquiry into the charges levelled against him. At the same time he was informed that he shall stay at Amrawati and shall not leave the headquarters. However, this office order was addressed to the petitioner at his Parbhani address. Pursuant to the two show cause notices and the reply submitted by the petitioner nothing further was done by way of appointing an Inquiry Officer so as to investigate/inquire into charges levelled against the petitioner, by the Managing Director of respondent No. 2, till the impugned termination order was issued.

(3.) AFFIDAVIT in reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 and it has been stated that the termination order does not caste any stigma and it cannot be treated to be an order of punishment. However, the affidavit alleges that the petitioner was careless while discharging his duties and he caused financial loss to the employer while settling the final payment of M/s. Pawan Trading Company. He was supposed to deduct the amount of Rs. 1-Lakh while settling the final payment to the said company and due to his negligent acts the said company was over paid. Regarding the compulsory leave it is stated that the petitioner was not allowed by the workers at the Amrawati factory to join his duties and he expressed fear to his life due to the agitated mood of workers as is clear from the letter dated 18th October, 1988 and, therefore, the management thought it fit to ask him to proceed on compulsory leave. It is also stated that the petitioners explanation to the two show cause notice was not found satisfactory and the petitioner has been blamed for allowing Junior Accountant Shri Chawala to commit a fraud to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ -. A preliminary point also has been raised regarding the maintainability of the petition and it is contended that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not the State instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was not tenable. However, the original affidavit as well as the additional affidavits filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not explain the power to issue an order of termination/discharge simpliciter against a permanent employee.