NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD Vs. RAJAB UDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.2.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge allowing WP(C) No. 3170 of 2002 filed by the Respondent, setting aside/quashing the order dated 31.7.2001 of his dismissal and directing his forthwith reinstatement with such back wages as the Disciplinary Authority may compute after holding a separate proceeding in this regard.

(2.) The Respondent Md. Rajabuddin Ahmed was selected and appointed as a Graduate Engineer Trainee (Mechanical) by the Appellant to undergo training for a period of twelve months vide letter dated 7.8.98. The respondent was deputed to render service in IBP Company Limited, a co-promoter of NRL. By an order dated 3.11.98, he was appointed in the post of Officer (Retail) in the Company. During course of inspection by the Addl. Divisional Manager of IBP Company Ltd. it was found that the relevant records of the retail outlet showing transactions were not properly maintained during the period between April, 1999 and August, 1999. The respondent was accordingly cautioned by the letter dated 8th September, 1999 and directed to maintain records in accordance with the prescribed procedure. An inspecting team, consisting of higher officials, during the course of inspection on November 23rd, 1999, noticed that the respondent was involved in misappropriation of fond of the said retail outlet during the period between 1.4.99 to 22.11.99 to the tune of Rs. 2.25,717,53, besides committing other gross irregularities in maintaining records as per procedure. The Advisor (H.R.) of the appellant Company was informed of the illegality and irregularity committed by the respondent including his admission/confession of guilt made before the Inspecting team. An Information was lodged with Golaghat Police on 23.11.99. On 24.11.99, F.I.R. was registered by the Officer-in-Charge of Golaghat Police Station whereupon Golaghat P.S. Case No. 325/99 was registered under Section 408 IPC against the Respondent. By a letter dated 26.11.99 the respondent was informed that there is a shortage of Rs. 96,955.33 and the matter is subject to further audit. In the event of any further amount found recoverable, the respondent would be liable to pay the same. In his reply, the Respondent denied the above allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent was placed under suspension and served with chargesheet on six different counts vide letter dated 21.12.99 addressed by the Advisor (HR). It was indicated in the charge memo that the Company could trace out bills amounting to Rs. 1,28,762.20 and, after adjustment, the actual amount misappropriated stood at Rs. 96,955.53. That apart, it was also indicated in the charge memo that the respondent had confessed his guilt vide deposition recorded on 23.11.99 in presence of the team members of the IBP Co. Ltd.

(3.) The respondent submitted his explanation vide letter dated January 22nd, 2000 denying the charges levelled against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the order dated April 20th, 2000.