DEBASIS BANERJEE Vs. HINDUSTAN LATEX LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is filed by the petitioner assailing the charge-sheet dated June 4, 2003 enquiry report dated December 1, 2003, order of punishment dated February 23, 2004 and the order dated May 7, 2004 passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) THE facts of the case in a nutshell is this the petitioner was sales officer of Hindusthan Latex Limited in its eastern region, Guwahati. He was served with charge-sheet dated June 4, 2003 by the respondent no. 4 for alleged misconduct, dishonestly and indiscipline in submitting bogus and forged bills claiming huge amounts with a view to cheat the respondent company. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 10, 2003 to the above charge-sheet refuting all the charges. After conducting an enquiry in the matter, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated December 1, 2003 to the disciplinary authority finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct under Rules 5 (1), 5 (5), 5 (6), 5 (9), 5 (17) and 5 (20) of the Hindusthan Latex Limited conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979. The petitioner submitted his representation dated January 12, 2004 to the above enquiry report. The respondent no. 3 by an order dated February 23, 2004 dismissed the petitioner from the services of the respondent no. 1 in accordance with the provisions of Clause (d) of Rule 23 of the Hindusthan Latex Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules, 1979 ). The petitioner preferred an appeal against the above order of dismissal dated February 23, 2004 before the appellate authority. By an order dated May 7, 2004, the appellate authority dismissed the above appeal.

(3.) IN is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the above charge-sheet was issued by the respondent no. 4 with closed mind. According to the petitioner, the wording of the charges conveyed a sense of finality of the petitioner's guilt.