SUBHASHISH MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated September 4, 1996 by which he has been dismissed from the post of Distillery Manager of the Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited. It is alleged that the order has been passed without holding any enquiry into the charges and without giving him any opportunity. It has been further alleged that the action has been taken mala fide and on account of extraneous considerations.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Distillery Manager on November 29, 1994. He had been given charge of the post in anticipation of the issue of a formal letter. While the petitioner was holding the post, a charge-sheet dated July 11, 1996 was issued to him. It was inter alia alleged that according to the report submitted by the Cane Advisor and the Financial Advisor of the Sugarfed, the Distillery had suffered a loss of Rs. 156.76 lacs during the year 1994-95. This loss had occurred on account of reasons of mismanagement, lower recovery, leakages, abnormally high rate for washing charges etc. The petitioner was informed that he was thus ''guilty of causing financial losses to the distillery for Rs. 156.76 lacs during 1994-95 when you had been working as Distillery Manager....'' He was asked to explain his position. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. He controverted the allegations and gave facts to show that the same were unfounded. The respondents held no enquiry. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be dismissed. He again submitted a reply. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed. It has been inter alia observed in the order that the petitioner had ''failed to rebut the same or say anything in his defence.'' This order reads as under :-

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties.