INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO TLD Vs. SAUMITRA MOHAN KUMAR ALIAS SAUMITRA KUMAR
LAWS(CAL)-1983-9-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 09,1983

INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO TLD Appellant
VERSUS
SAUMITRA MOHAN KUMAR ALIAS SAUMITRA KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal against an interlocutory order dated november 30, 1982, passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1951 of 1981. By the order impugned the learned Chief judge had allowed in part an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 preferred by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant, India Photographic company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has preferred the present appeal.
(2.) THE plaintiff is an employee of the defendant company. He was served with a show cause notice dated August 20, 1981. In this show cause notice he was charged with a misconduct and the allegation was that he made out and prepared on August 5, 1981, an order on behalf of the Company bearing No. 20385 for 40 rolls x 400 feet of 35 m. m. E. C. N. film in the name of one Messrs. Sangeeta Production of 23, Lake Road, Calcutta. On the basis of the said order, the plaintiff took delivery of 40 rolls of such film from the warehouse of the Company against receipt. He, however, later altered or changed the figure '40' appearing in the copies of the order bearing No. 20385 to read as '4' by erasing 'o' from the figure '40' to give an impression that order copies were made for only 4 rolls instead of 40 rolls. It was further alleged that the customer's representative being given the second copy of such an altered order, Company received payment only for 4 roils though 40 rolls were taken delivery of from the Company. , accordingly, the plaintiff was charged : "that you had wilfully and wrongly delivered to Messrs. Sangeeta Production 36 rolls x 400 feet of 35 m. m. E. C. N. film in excess against the order No. 20385 dated 5th August 1981, so prepared and manipulated/tampered by you without realizing or receiving the payment of the price or value for the same or alternatively you had yourself fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriate the said goods or fraudulently and dishonestly sold or otherwise transferred the same and misappropriated the sale proceeds thereof causing heavy financial loss to the Company arid personal gain to you. You are charged with having committed acts of grave and gross misconduct causing disappearance and loss of 36 rolls x 400 feet of 35 m. m. E. C. N. film belonging to the Company causing pecuniary damage and loss to the Company. "
(3.) IN the domestic enquiry proposed the plaintiff made a representation on September 15, 1981, seeking a right to be represented by a lawyer in view of the nature of the charges levelled and the serious consequences which are likely to follow in the event he is adjudged guilty of such a misconduct. The defendant Company, however, refused to grant any such opportunity to the plaintiff to be represented by a lawyer on the ground that the law does not permit any such representation in a domestic enquiry.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.