JAGDISH LAL CHANDA Vs. CENTRAL COTTEGE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JAGDISH LAL CHANDA
CENTRAL COTTAGE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
R.N. Aggarwal, J. -
(1.)The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15th October 1982 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service without holding the usual enquiry. The petitioner Shri J.L. Chanda at the relevant time was posted as Senior Accounts Assistant in the Central Cottage Industries Corporation Limited. Earlier to the above order on 28th July 1979 the petitioner was placed under suspension. The order dated 15th October 1982 is a brief one and it reads as under :
"You are hereby informed that you are dismissed from service with immediate effect on account of gross misconduct including fraud cheating, forgery and embezzlement of Corporation's fund to the true of Rs. 11.34 lakhs (approximately) and thus causing wrorgful loss to the Corporation. On account of the nature of the charges, you have forfeited the confidence of the Management and it is not desirable to keep you in service any longer."
(2.)The respondents in their counter affidavit pleaded that in 1979 an embezzlement/forgery in the amount of over Rs. II lakhs was detected by the management and it was found that the petitioner was directly involved with the embezzlement and forgery and consequently a report was made to the police and subsequently the matter was handed over to the C.B.I, and that during investigation the house of the petitioner was raided and a sum of Rs 2,39,675.00 was recovered from his house, Rs. 65,304.00 were lying in the bank in the current account of the petitioner which was frozen and the petitioner was further found to have invested a sum of Rs. l,70,000.00 for purchase of land and building. A case was registered against the petitioner and few others and which is pending. The respondent further pleaded that in view of the criminal proceedings the management found that it 'was not possible to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and, therefore, looking to all the facts and circumstances the Corporation resorted to rule 32(iii) of the C.C.I.C. (Conduct and Disciplinary) Rules, 1977 and terminated the services of the petitioner. The respondent stated that the Board in taking the decision have taken into consideration the following facts :-
"(i) Records concerning this case are with CBI/Court. It will not be possible to hold an enquiry without these records.
(ii) Domestic enquiry proceedings may adversely affect the criminal case pending in the Court against Shri Chanda.
(iii) Enquiry is likely to be prolonged. Besides, it will be a problem to arrange the evidence witnesses like employees of the Banks with which Shri Chanda operated Accounts.
(iv) Till such time the enquiry is completed the Corporation will have to pay subsistence allowance which will be further an unnecessary financial burden on the Corporation.
(v) There is a possibility of Shri Chanda raising a plea that enquny proceedings shall cause prejudice to the criminal proceedings against him and, therefore, he will bejustified in requesting the Management to stay the domestic proceedings till such time the crimina case is decided."
(3.)Shri Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order does not mention that it was not possible to hold the enquiry and also the order does not mention the reasons for terminating the services under rule 32(iii).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.