MAHARASHTRA STATE SEED CORPN LTD Vs. HARIDAS
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 24,2006

(M/S.) Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Haridas And Anr. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JAYANT PRABHUBHAI PATEL VS. DINESH MILLS LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANT PRABHUBHAI PATEL VS. DINESH MILLS LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA DOMLE VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-203] [REFERRED]
DHARMENDRA DOMLE VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-203] [REFERRED]
MADHAV PRASAD SHARMA VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAV PRASAD SHARMA VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
GOPI CHAND AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-173] [REFERRED TO]
GOPI CHAND AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-173] [REFERRED TO]
KALINGA MINING CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND 9 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
KALINGA MINING CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND 9 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. T. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2023-1-1078] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. T. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2023-1-1078] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARAJU VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2007-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARAJU VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2007-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH CHANDRA JAIN SON OF LATE SHEEL CHANDRA JAIN VS. SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-390] [REFERRED]
DINESH CHANDRA JAIN SON OF LATE SHEEL CHANDRA JAIN VS. SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-390] [REFERRED]
MUNNA LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
GANGAMATI PATEL VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
GANGAMATI PATEL VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
VIVIDH MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
VIVIDH MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL VOHRA VS. MCD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-289] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL VOHRA VS. MCD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-289] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA RANI SUR ALIAS MAYA DEBI SUR VS. SANKAR CHANDRA MAJUMDER [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA RANI SUR ALIAS MAYA DEBI SUR VS. SANKAR CHANDRA MAJUMDER [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
C KAMALA KANTH VS. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2010-6-116] [REFERRED TO]
C KAMALA KANTH VS. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2010-6-116] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTI NANDA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTI NANDA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA RAJA TEXTILES LTD VS. S ARUCHAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA RAJA TEXTILES LTD VS. S ARUCHAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMRAJ KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMRAJ KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ODISHA VS. PRADEEP ACHARYA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ODISHA VS. PRADEEP ACHARYA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ODISHA VS. PRADEEP ACHARYA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ODISHA VS. PRADEEP ACHARYA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
SAKET KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2020-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
SAKET KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2020-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
G.R. SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2009-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
G.R. SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2009-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM VASSUDEO PARAB VS. SECRETARY GENERAL FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM VASSUDEO PARAB VS. SECRETARY GENERAL FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-78] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellant herein is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It deals in production and supply of seeds to the farmers. The respondent herein was appointed as an Assistant Field Officer. While he was working at nanded, misconducts committed by him came to the notice of his superior officer. A preliminary enquiry was conducted thereabout whereafter a charge sheet was issued to him. A disciplinary proceeding was thereafter initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer held :" (1) It is proved that Shri H. D. Jadhao afo has violated the instructions of d. M. Nanded for distribution of F/seeds on credit to the eligible seed growers of deglur and Mukhed. He is also responsible for non recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 19,938.50 from the seed growers towards cost of F/seeds, Inspection fees and Application fees etc. out of this amount Shri Gorthekar is responsible for non deposition of Rs. 2675/- as per his undertaking and hence Shri Jadhao stands responsible for non recovery of net amount of Rs. 17,263.59. For the amount of Rs. 2437/- towards shortage of F/seed Shri Jadhao as well as Shri Gorthekar stands responsible. (2) Shri Jadhao cannot be held responsible totally for late submission of record since the persons involved in distribution of F/seeds etc. was absconding and hence some time was required to collect the information from the seed growers. Also the charge of non recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 35,190/- from the seed growers in absence of the record cannot be proved. (3) It cannot be proved that the amount paid to Shri Jadhao by the seed growers or their representatives has not deposited by him. However, it is concluded that the entire mesh has been created on account of negligence on the part of shri Jadhao. (4) It is proved beyond doubt that an amount of Rs. 26104/- collected from the seed growers have been misappropriated by Shri Jadhao. (5) Since the 22 bags of Hy. Cotton dch-32 have been traced out the charge of misappropriation of this stock by Shri Jadhao cannot be proved. (6) It is also concluded that Shri Jadhao proceeded on leave without prior permission of the superior from time to time. Similarly he has not attended the weekly meetings called by D. M. without satisfactory reasons. As a result he was not aware about the instructions given by the D. M. from time to time. "
(2.)The Enquiry Officer, in his report, thus, found him guilty of commission of the following misconducts: (1) He violated the instructions issued by the District Magistrate, Nanded. (2) He misappropriated a huge amount of the corporation. (3) He remained on leave without prior approval of leave and failed to attend the meetings.
(3.)It is not in dispute that the Enquiry officer recommended punishment of the Respondent for commission of the said misconducts in the following terms :" (1) An amount of Rs. 17,263.50 should be recovered from Shri Jadhao is suitable instalments along with interest. (2) It is also proposed to recover interest on an amount of Rs. 26,104/- for the period from 18.6.91 to 17.9.91. (3) 50% cost of shortages in foundation seed i. e. Rs. 1219/- should also be recovered from Shri Jadhao. (4) Two increments should be barred permanently. (5) Warning letter may be issued to shri Jadhao to be punctual in attending corporation's work in future not to leave H. Q. without prior permission of the superior and follow all the instructions scrupulously henceforth failing which stern action will be taken against him. (6) It is further proposed that an amount of Rs. 2675/- as well as Rs. 1218/- towards 50% costs of shortages in foundation seeds should be recovered from Shri Gorthekar. "


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