RAJESH KUMAR NIGAM Vs. UTTARAKHAND SEEDS AND TARAI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rajesh Kumar Nigam
Uttarakhand Seeds And Tarai Development Corporation Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. -
(1.) BY an order dated 22nd January 2011, the services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect, and a direction has been issued for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,35,175/ - from the petitioner. The said order was passed upon conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 33 of the Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of the respondent Corporation. In the order, it was also stated that no salary shall be admissible to the petitioner, except subsistence allowance received by him during the suspension period. By filing the present writ petition, validity of the said order has been challenged.
(2.) HEARD leaned counsel for the parties, considered the pleadings filed by them and the materials on record. The disciplinary proceeding, which was concluded by the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2011, was initiated by issuing a charge sheet dated 13th July 2010. Prior thereto, petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding to be initiated for the purpose of unearthing the truth of certain allegations. Some of those allegations were mentioned in the charge sheet dated 13th July 2010, and the charge sheet also included some more allegations.
(3.) IN the charge sheet dated 13th July 2010, several charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first charge was that the Board of Directors of the respondent employer took a decision in the 196th meeting held on 9th June 2008, that the quantity of one lac quintals of raw seed, which are excess over the target, being mainly of four varieties, be not processed but be kept reserved and processing be done only after receiving clear demand, else efforts be made to sell off the same as foodgrain in such a way that no loss is occurred to the Corporation, and that until sale of excess quantity of one lac quintal is assured, the same be kept unprocessed, and an alternative plan to sell the same in bulk at fair price, be also made ready. Under the first charge, it was alleged that the petitioner, who was then working as Company Secretary and General Manager of the respondent employer, made a note in the file and thereby recommended that in view of the demand of Bihar State Seeds Corporation, there was no relevance of decision of Board taken in its said meeting that, until confirmed demand is received, one lac quintals of seeds should not be processed. It was stated under the said charge that 25000 quintals of additional quantity of raw seeds was recommended by the petitioner to be processed in anticipation of the approval of the Board meeting dated 30th September 2008, and that a recommendation was also made by the petitioner that 15000 quintals of additional quantity of raw seed be processed in anticipation of Board 's approval in the meeting to be held on 30th September 2008. It was contended under charge No. 1, that contrary to the decision of the Board of Directors, 25000 plus 10000 quintals, aggregating to 35000 quintals, of seeds was processed / treated, due to which 55000 quintals of processed seeds remain as balance, whereas only 20000 quintals of processed seeds would have remained as unsold. It was alleged that despite the said decision of the Board of Directors, the petitioner got extra 35000 quintals of seeds processed / treated, and accordingly, extra processed seeds remained unsold, resulting in commercial loss of Rs. 166.84 lacs to the respondent Corporation. It was also alleged that for processing additional 35000 quintals, no sanction was obtained from the then Chairman, for which the petitioner was answerable, and accordingly, he was charge sheeted.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.