V. MADHUMOHAN Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, having served the respondents company, resigned from his post and joined as an Agricultural Officer in the department of Agriculture, the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Holding that the petitioner left the respondent company without having his resignation accepted and that he was also guilty of misconduct of causing financial loss to the respondent company by providing stock to one particular dealer in his territory over and above the sanctioned limit, the respondent company initiated disciplinary proceedings. Eventually, the petitioner was dismissed from service through an order dated 02.07.2004 of the Disciplinary Authority. When even the intra-departmental appeal proved futile, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 13.09.1995 the petitioner joined the service of the respondent company as a Sales Officer in the Marketing Division located in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Having served the company for a few years, he obtained an experience certificate and also no objection certificate from the respondent company with a view to applying to a suitable post in the Government of Andhra Pradesh. After obtaining those certificates, the petitioner applied for the post of Agricultural Officer in the department of Agriculture, Government of A.P. On selection, the petitioner submitted his resignation letter on 18.12.2002 to the respondent company stating that he had to report to duty in the department of his new employer on 23.12.2002 and that his resignation might to treated to have come into force from the very date of his submitting the letter of resignation, i.e., 18.12.2002.

(3.) In the manner stated in the letter of resignation, the petitioner went ahead and joined the services of his new employer, incidentally Government of A.P., on 23.12.2002. Later, on 04.03.2003 the 5th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to recover from a dealer an amount of Rs.6,46,000/- said to be due from him. To expatiate on this aspect, it could be seen that while the petitioner was in the service of the respondent company, he is alleged to have allowed one of the dealers in his territory to draw stock in excess of his sanctioned limit. It appears from record that this communication was followed up with further directions to the petitioner to ensure the recovery of the amount from the dealer. Eventually, on 11.09.2003 the respondent company issued to the petitioner a memo of charges alleging that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct on two counts: that he absented himself from duty without leave and that he failed to recover the amounts due from the dealer and thus caused pecuniary loss to the respondent Company.