M JYOTHI RAJU SECUNDERABAD Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR NATIONAL CO OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner as illegal and improper and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the post of Upper Division Clerk in the National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India Limited (for short 'NCCP).

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the 1st respondent-organization in fhe year 1979 and subsequently, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the year 1982. In the year 1981, he was posted in the Hyderabad Branch and in 1985 he was given the Incharge of Confiscated Goods Godowns. The nature of work attended to by him was sale of goods and maintenance of stock. He maintained the section from 1985 to 1988. On 30-6-1988 he was posted to another Section and in his place one Veer Singh was posted. At the time of handing over charge, he prepared stock lists as well as shortage lists and handed over the same to his successor- Veer Singh. However, Veer Singh was not prepared to take charge as at that time there was a shortage of stock worth Rs.14,500.00 and the latter insisted that unless and until the shortage was covered, he will not take charge of the section from him. 30-6-1988 was an year ending day and as such, the banks were not functioning. Further, he had to attend to his wife, who was in the hospital and this was explained to the Branch Manager. On the very next day i.e., 1-7-1988 he deposited the amount of Rs.14,500.00 towards shortage of stock with Veer Singh and left to the hospital to attend his ailing wife. While the matter stood thus, after more than an year, the Vigilance Officer came and verified the records and found that the amount deposited by him was not accounted for and as such, recommended to the respondents to take appropriate action against him. Then, he was served with a memo, to which he submitted an explanation stating that shortage of stock amount was paid to Veer Singh and the shortage had occured due to sale of goods in retail. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by him, he was suspended from service on 6-12-1989. An enquiry was ordered and on the basis of the enquiry report his services were terminated without giving any weight to the evidence, which is in his favour. The 1st respondent has issued proceedings dated 7-6-1994 terminating his services. The appeal filed by him against the said order ended in dismissal. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) The main thrust of the petitioner is that the shortage amount of Rs.14,500.00 was paid to Veer Singh with the consent of the then Branch Manager; therefore, to the extent of the shortage of stock he had already deposited the amount and it is Veer Singh, who had not deposited the amount and as such, injustice is done to him. There was no mala fide on his part in the occurrence of the shortage as stated above and out of good faith he has paid the shortage amount to his successor Veer Singh with the consent of the then Branch Manager. Therefore, the question of misutilization of the departmental funds for personal use does not arise. Further, Veer Singh himself has prepared the lists of shortage as 'nil'; therefore, the charge of shortage in stocks, after one year, against him is nothing but to safeguard the interested individuals. Hence, the impugned order is motivated and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The respondent- management also has not given any weightage to his past conduct and imposed the major punishment of termination and the same is arbitrary and illegal.