SURYAKANTA DAS Vs. KONARK TELEVISION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner above named has challenged the order of his termination from service passed on 15th March, 1996 under Annexure -15, the enquiry report in a departmental enquiry dated 23.6.1995 under Annexure -9 and the order of rejection of his appeal against the order of termination under Annexure -17 and has come with a prayer to quash the same on the ground that the charges levelled against him are totally baseless and without any material on record, the Enquiry Officers finding under Annexure -9 and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority terminating his services is neither logical nor legal.

(2.) THE background of facts compelling the petitioner to file this writ petition is stated as follows : - The petitioner joined the Konark Television Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company) as a Trained Mechanic in the year 1978 and he was promoted to the post of Technical Officer in the year 1990. While functioning as such, he was transferred and posted in April, 1991 at Berhampur Sale Center and was directed to look after the promotion of sale in addition to his posting as Technical Officer and he continued there from April, 1991 to March, 1992. Thereafter, he was transferred to Jeypore as Technical Officer and in January, 1993 while he was functioning as such at Jeypore he was charge -sheeted for misappropriation of the Companys cash amounting to Rs.40,243.71 during his tenure at Berhampur. A proceeding was initiated against him and three others, namely, Sri Dwijabar Bhuyan and Sri Kamaraj Biswal, who were is predecessor and successor respectively, and against Sri M.P. Hentalia who had worked as Junior Assistant in -charge of collection and deposit during the tenure of the petitioner and other two Technical Officers, by the Managing Director, Konark Television Ltd. (O.P. No.2). The particular of the charges was served on the petitioner and he was called upon to file his written statement of defence within seven days. In the said written statement, the petitioner submitted that the collection of cash and the deposit of the same were independently handled by the Junior Assistant, Sri Hentalia and the petitioner was merely signing the Bill Books and the monthly statement including the monthly cash scroll, money receipts and the competent bills were regularly sent to the Finance Department of the Head office for verification and during his tenure at Berhampur as Technical Officer there was never any intimation to the petitioner regarding any discrepancy in the financial matter. He also stated in his show cause he was engaged in the promotion of sales as well as after sale service in the District of Ganjam, Phulbani and Koraput and there was no specific order to him from the Head Office to maintain the cash receipts, which was the sole job of the Junior Assistant, Sri Hentalia. He further stated therein that there was a short deposit of Rs.24,912.71 and not the amount of Rs.40,243.71 and the expenditure for the Service Centre for the month of January, 1992 to March, 1992 was made from the collection money as per the instruction of the Finance Manager and the vouchers for the said amount spent towards maintenance of the said Service Center was duly deposited in the Accounts Section of the Head Office. He specifically mentioned the Jr. Assistant, Sri Hentalia was fully responsible for the short deposit and he had absolutely no role to play in the matter.

(3.) BASING on the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Managing Director of the Company (O.P. No.2) issued notice to show cause annexing the enquiry report and the petitioner submitted his show cause, vide Annexure -10 after which vide Annexure -15 O.P. No.2 on 15.3.1996 passed the impugned order which is as follows : - "Being the Disciplinary Authority, I hereby, dispose of the proceeding case by passing the following orders : - (i) Sri Suryakanta Das, Technical Officer is hereby terminated from service with immediate effect i.e. from the date of issue of this order. One months salary will be paid to Sri Das in lieu of one -month notice. (ii) Gratuity to be injuncted and adjusted against the misappropriated amount. (iii) No arrears will be disbursed to Sri Das till the final recovery and if required the same may be adjusted against the misappropriated amount." It is mentioned in the order of the Disciplinary Authority that it is established that Sri Das has misappropriated a sum of Rs.40,798.46 during his tenure at Berhampur Service Center.