KOLHAPUR ZILLA Vs. SHIVAJI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, by consent of the learned counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The two workmen who are Respondents to these proceedings were employed by the Petitioner as temporaries. The Petitioner is a Federation of Milk Supply Societies in the District of Kolhapur and is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioner is engaged in the collection of milk from village societies and in the processing and distribution thereof. The Petitioner employs about 1891 employees and has a processing plant at Borawade (Bidri). A charge- sheet was issued to the two workmen on 8th August, 1989 in respect of an incident which took place on 1st April, 1989. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that the First Respondent had taken leave of absence on 1st April, 1989 due to personal reasons on the ground of a marriage in the family. However, on 1st April, 1989 the workman stayed for the night in the precincts of a hotel. At about 1.30 a.m. an officer by the name of Mr. R.D. Patil came to the hotel and took the workman with him, informing him that a tanker had to be filled. The workman accompanied the said officer to the chilling plant in the tanker. The tanker came to be filled unauthorizedly with milk of a total volume of nearly 10,000 liters together with the assistance of the First and Second Respondents. A trap was laid by the management on a suspicion that milk belonging to the Petitioner was being unauthorizedly secreted away. The tanker was apprehended. It is accordingly alleged that though the First Respondent was not on duty on 1st April, 1989, he had during the hours of the night proceeded to the chilling center in a private tanker and had aided in facilitating the theft of milk from the precincts of the Petitioner by unauthorizedly filling up a private tanker to the extent of 10,000 liters. The Second Respondent was also charged with having committed misconduct.

(3.) A disciplinary enquiry was initiated on the aforesaid charge of misconduct involving theft of the property of the employer. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and both the workmen who were charge- sheeted were permitted to be represented by an advocate. On 11th June, 1990 the evidence of the Managing Director of the Petitioner was recorded. On 27th February, 1991 during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings a letter was addressed by the Respondent workmen accepting the charge of misconduct and requesting the management, in view of their financial position, to allow them to resume duty. The record of the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer shows that the workmen were asked as to whether they had in fact addressed such a letter to which the answer was in the affirmative. The workmen were asked as to whether the charges were acceptable to which the answer was again in the affirmative. The workmen stated upon enquiry that the letter had been addressed by them voluntarily and without any coercion. The workmen stated that in terms of the request a lenient view may be taken of the matter and they may be allowed to resume duty. Insofar as the First Respondent is concerned, he had stated in his letter that he accepted the charge contained in the letter dated 1st April, 1989. The First Respondent stated that at the behest of Mr. R.D. Patil who was in charge of the chilling plant, he had proceeded to fill the tanker when he was apprehended by the Managing Director of the Petitioner together with certain other members of the management. The First Respondent stated that he had carried out the aforesaid course of conduct at the behest of his superior and that he should be excused for the lapse. The First Respondent stated that he had no intention to defraud the Petitioner.