BRAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. BENGAL CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has come with a prayer for quashment of Annexure -11, the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 14.9.2001 inflicting punishment of removal from service and the order of the Appellate Authority under Annexure -14 confirming the said order and has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties for his reinstatement in service with full pecuniary benefits.

(2.) THE factual foundation on which the petitioner has structured the writ petition runs as under:

(3.) IT is the assertion of the petitioner that only against order placed goods were despatched and full payment for the materials were made by the intending companies and the said amount has been fully accounted for the this fact he had brought out during the enquiry proceeding. He has in the writ petition forcefully asserted that the allegation regarding non -placement of order and consequential supply thereto is not only false, fabricated and there is absolutely no material on record to support such allegation. He has also asserted that the Management's allegation regarding deposit of an amount of Rs. 55,745.45 towards Sales Tax has not at all been proved and on the other hand the petitioner had proved that only Rs. 24,851.69 was deposited with the Sales Tax Authorities. He has further asserted that if at all any excess payment was made the succeeding officer could raise a claim for refund after the goods already sold were returned back. As regards the shortage of goods at Rs. 8.04 lakhs as per stock verification on 14.9.1998 it is averred that the said detection is without any basis and is general in nature and the same being done on 14.11.1998 the same might have occurred after 30.5.1998 on which date he left Patna Depot. In this connection, he has further asserted that physical verification of the stock during his incumbency was done on 31.3.1998 and there was absolutely no shortage in the stock. It is finally asserted that the order of the Managing Director for removal from service and the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the same are liable to the quashed on the face of the fact that the area Sales Manager is not physically in charge of store and stock at any point to time and the charge of the stock and store and responsibility of maintenance of the same is of the Senior Stores Account Assistant and the petitioner was never handed over the key of the store so as to fix up responsibility regarding any shortage.