RAJAB UDDIN AHMED Vs. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order-dated 31.7.2001 passed by the Advisor (HR), Numaligarh Refinery Limited, dismissing the writ petitioner from service has been put to challenge in the present writ application.

(2.) The facts relevant to the present adjudication, as revealed by the pleadings of the contesting parties and the other materials placed on record, may, in brief be recited hereunder: The petitioner, after due selection, was appointed as a Graduate Engineer Trainee (Mechanical) in the Numaligarh Refinery Limited (hereinafter referred to as NRL) by an order dated 7.8.1998. Immediately, after his appointment, the petitioner was seconded (deputed) to render service in the I.B.P. Company Limited, a co-promoter of NRL. Thereafter, by an order dated 3.11.1998, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Officer (Retail) in the Company owned and Company operated Retail Outlet at Numaligarh. According to the employer of the petitioner, in the course of a visit and inspection by the Additional Divisional Manager of IBP Company, it was found that for the period April, 1999 to August, 1999, the relevant records of the retail outlet showing the cash sales were not being maintained. Accordingly, the petitioner, by a letter dated 5.9.1999, was informed to update the records. According to the petitioner's employer, the petitioner did not carry out the aforesaid instructions and when a second team of officers had gone to the retail outlet to carry out a reconciliation of the accounts, the non-availability of the records was again evident for which reason, the petitioner was asked to produce all the relevant records within a period of 24 hours. According to the petitioner's employer, the petitioner, on 23.11.99, appeared before the inspecting team and admitted the commission of several irregularities and illegalities including misappropriation of money and the petitioner had further agreed to reimburse the company a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The aforesaid admission of the petitioner was made in writing on 23.11.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner's employer by a communication dated 24.11.99, informed the Advisor (HR) NRL of the commission of the illegalities and irregularities by the petitioner including the admission/confession of guilt made by him. The authority of the NRL was also requested to file an F.I.R. with the police in this regard. Thereafter, on the same day, i.e., 24.11.99, an F.I.R. was filed before the Officer-in-Charge of the Golaghat Police Station and on the basis thereof, Golaghat Police Station Case No. 325/99 under Section 408 IPC was registered. Immediately, thereafter, i.e., on 26.11.99, a letter was issued by the Additional Divisional Manager, Guwahati Division, IBP Company Limited informing the petitioner that the reconciliation of the accounts of the retail outlet during the period 1.4.99 to 22.11.99 had revealed that the petitioner is guilty of gross negligence of duty with regard to maintenance of statutory records besides being guilty of misappropriation of funds and fabrication of dubious records. Allegations of carrying out different jobs in the retail outlet and incurring expenditure in connection therewith without taking prior approval, was also brought against the petitioner. By the communication dated 26.11.99, the petitioner was further informed that during the period in question, i.e., 1.4.99 to 22.11.99, the discrepancy in the accounts was to the extent of Rs. 2,25,717.53 and that out of the said amount, the records could satisfactorily account for adjustment of a sum of Rs. 1,28,762.20. The difference between the two figures, i.e., Rs. 96,955.33 was claimed to be due from the petitioner. The petitioner was further informed that the reconciliation of accounts and the figures computed on that basis were provisional and that any further amount found to be recoverable might be added to the amount already quantified.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegations recorded in the letter dated 26.11.99. The authority not being satisfied issued a formal charge-sheet dated 21.12.1999 to the petitioner stating that the inspection of the accounts of the Retail Outlet at Numaligarh on 23.11.1999 for the period 1.4.1999 to 22.11.1999 had revealed an unexplained amount of Rs. 2,25,717.53 and that on adjustment of a sum of Rs. 1,28,762.20 for jobs carried out by the petitioner, a balance amount of Rs. 96,955.53 remained unexplained. The petitioner was alleged to have misappropriated the said amount. In the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, it was also alleged that the petitioner had failed to maintain the daily sales register, density register, cash register etc. and that he had also indulged in fabrication of dubious records to cover up the misappropriation committed by him. In particular, fabrication of the daily sales register and the daily cash sales book was mentioned in the charge sheet issued. Incurring of expenditures without prior approval and relinquishment of the control of the safe containing cash was also alleged against the petitioner. On the said facts, commissions of the following misconduct were alleged: