MANAGING MEMBER NIRMAL INDUSTRIES KHAIRATABAD HYDERABAD Vs. NASEEMUDDING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Managing Member, M/s Nirmal Industries, Khairtabad, Hyderabad praying to call for records relating to C.M.A. 30 of 1962 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad reversing the order of the 3rd respondent, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Andhra Pradesh., Hyderabad and made in application No. 80 of 1961 dated 4-7-1961 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The 1st respondent, Naseemuddin was appointed in the Nirmal Industries. He worked in the post till February, 1956. The report of the auditors for the period the applicant worked as an Accountant revealed that certain amounts were not properly accounted for. So pending the enquiry, the 1st respondent was suspended from service on 5-9-1956 on which date a charge sheet was served upon him charging him with having misappropriated two amounts of Rs. 400 and Rs. 300. He was also charged with having misappropriated some other amounts. The total amount for which he was asked to account for was Rs. 2,598 5-9. The 1st respondent was called upon to submit his explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service and the amounts recovered from him.

(3.) The charge sheet was formed by the Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries Department (Industrial Trust Fund) Hyderabad, on 12th September, the 1st respondent submitted his explanation denying the charges against him. He pleaded that he was not responsible. His explanation was not accepted by the Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries Department who by his communication dated 16/11/1956 stated that the 1st respondents explanation was not at all satisfactory and the charges of misappropriation had been proved against him. Therefore, he was informed that his services were terminated with effect from 5/09/1956, the date on which he was suspended. By that communication, the 1st respondent was further informed that a sum of Rs. 706-3-6 was due from him and he was asked to pay that amount from the date of the receipt of that letter. He was also asked to account for the advances to the employees made by him.