CHAIRMAN AND M D BHARAT PET CORP LTD Vs. T K RAJU
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 24,2006

CHAIRMAN AND M.D.,BHARAT PET. CORPN. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
T.K.RAJU Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

R RAMANI VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-203] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. CHANDRAKANT GOKALBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2023-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
P D AGRAWAL VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHATSINH SAMATSINH VS. D S P [LAWS(GJH)-2009-5-101] [REFERRED TO]
DTC VS. PYARE LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
KANDASAMY VS. MANAGEMENT TNSTC KOVAI DIVISION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-394] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF M M NEYTHALUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT TIRUCHIRAPALLI [LAWS(MAD)-2006-6-188] [REFERRED TO]
M P THAKRAR VS. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER [LAWS(GJH)-2006-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT COR VS. PYARE LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-312] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA SHARMA VS. MADHYA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-1-225] [REFERRED]
ANURAG KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
DEBENDRA PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-7-241] [REFERRED]
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. VS. MANDAL VYAS AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
M GOPALA KRISHNA VS. DIVISIONAL SECRETARY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE [LAWS(APH)-2006-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-371] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND REGIONAL CO-OP OIL SEEDSGROWERS UNION LTD VS. SHAILESHKUMAR HARSHADBHAI SHAH [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
S MUTHURAMU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-184] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANSINGH KARANSINGH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SHEETLA SAHAI [LAWS(SC)-2009-8-125] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LANKA VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA., REP. BY SPECIAL PP OF CBI, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
C KAMALA KANTH VS. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2010-6-116] [REFERRED TO]
L ANAND VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-295] [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR PREM CHAND VS. GOVT OF N C T OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. SANJAY KUMAR SAVITA [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH KUNDU VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2011-7-236] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BHUWAN SHUKLA VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2011-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI LAL VS. CHAIRMAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALIGARH GRAMIN BANK ALIGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
NAPUK TEA ESTATE VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR VS. S.K.TALWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-345] [REFERRED TO]
CH LAXMINARAYANA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
M M YARDI VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-9-179] [REFERRED TO]
SHIB PRASAD BISWAS VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2009-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
K. RATNA PRABHA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
M KARNAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-296] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR SINGH JATAV VS. DY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANPUR ZONE, KANPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-106] [REFERRED TO]
APOLLO TYRES LIMITED VS. RAKESHKUMAR PAL [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-216] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.)The Respondent was a Senior Sales Officer (LPG) in the Sales Department at Bombay Office of the Appellants. The Chief Divisional Manager of the Cochin Divisional Office under whom the Respondent had been working received complaints from All India LPG Distributors Federation (Kerala Circle) alleging financial irregularities on the part of the Respondent. Allegedly, the Respondent collected diverse amounts from the distributors purported to be by way of Short Term Hand Loans. The same had not been repaid to some of them. On or about 27-7-1992, a charge memo was served upon the Respondent alleging :
"That in November 1991 you had taken the loan of Rs. 5000/- from M/s. Rose Flames, Cochin and the said amount was repaid by you only after a period of five months i.e. only after show cause notice Ref. C. PERS. STF dated December 10, 1991 was served on you by CDM, Cochin Divisional Office. At that time you had also taken one DPR (Differential Pressure Regulator) from the aforesaid Distributor which has not been returned or replaced by you.

You had taken a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from Jyothi Gas, Tripunithura and the said amount was returned only after a period of about 2 weeks. You had also taken a DPR (Differential Pressure Regulator) from this Distributor which was returned only in February 1992 after a period of more than an year.

You had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000 in July 1991 from M/s. Krishna Gas, Ernakulam which amount has not been returned by you. Furthermore, you have also solicited further loan from this distributor. You had also taken a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from M/s. Cherukara Gas Agencies, Alleppey during July 1991 which was returned by you after a period of 30 days.

You had demanded a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from M/s. Seena Gas who had subsequently given you Rs. 5,000/- on September 7, 1991 which has not been returned by you till date.

You had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from M/s. Maria Flames for finalising a house site which has not been returned till now. On assuming charge as LPG Sales Officer in the month of April 1991, you had demanded Rs. 5000/- again from this distributor. When the distributor explained his difficulties you had demanded at least Rs. 2000/- which was not paid by the distributor. On 6-11-91 on your visit to the distributor for an inspection, you demanded an LPG stove which was given to you on credit which amount has also not been settled by you.

You had taken articles and availed services worth Rs. 2487/- from our dealer M/s. K.P. Varghese and Sons on credit. This amount has also not been settled by you so far. You had taken supplies of petrol on credit from M/s. K.K. Abraham, Ernakulam during the period April 1990 and a sum of Rs. 2329.90 due for the supplies has not yet been paid."

(2.)A disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Respondent. He was found guilty therein. The said charges were levelled against him purported to be in terms of Rules 4 and 22 of Part II read with Clauses 4, 6, 20, 22, 31 and 37 of Rule A in Part III of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for the Management Staff (for short "the Rules").
(3.)The Management in the said departmental enquiry examined Mr. Jayaraman, Secretary of the Federation. Other distributors being eight in number were also examined. The said witnesses were also cross-examined by the Respondent. An enquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority and the latter by an order dated 5-12-1994 imposed a punishment of dismissal of services upon the Respondent. He performed a statutory appeal thereagainst before the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Appellant-Corporation who was the designated appellate authority. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 6-6-1995 stating:
"Having come to the conclusion that charges were duly proved and established against Sri Raju, as above, I feel I have considered the question of punishment. I feel that any one of eight charges, if proved, against Sri Raju, would warrant the punishment of dismissal from service, considering the position held by him as well as the nature of the misconduct involved. I have already mentioned about the admissions relating to charges 7 and 8. Taking all this into account, I feel that in the interests of the Corporation, it is not proper to retain a person like Sri Raju who is guilty of such misconducts proved against him in the service of the Corporation.

In the above circumstances, I conclude that the various submissions, averments made by Sri T.K. Raju in his Appeal dated 9-3-1995 do not provide any ground meriting review of the order passed by the Director (Marketing).

Considering the grave nature of acts of misconducts proved against Sri T.K. Raju, I hold that the order of dismissal of Sri T.K. Raju from Corporations services, passed by the Director (Marketing) on 5-12-94 is proper, just and equitable, and I do not, therefore, wish to interfere with the said Order."



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