S RAGHURAMAN Vs. H M T LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 31/05/1996 dismissing the petitioner from services of respondents No.1 to 3 and the consequent order dated 26/06/1996 rejecting the Appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 1 Company H.M.T. Ltd. as a Clerk 'B' in wage grade II and posted at its Bombay office as per its appointment letter dated 04/03/1980. The petitioner joined the Company on 01/04/1980 and was working in Sales Counter. The petitioner was promoted with effect from 01/04/1983 as a Clerk 'A' in wage grade III and continued to work in Sales Counter. The petitioner was promoted as a Senior Clerk in wage grade 'IV' with effect 01/04/1986. The petitioner was further promoted as an Assistant Superintendent in wage grade V with effect from 01/04/1989 and assigned duties in Sales and Accounts. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as a Junior Officer (Accounts) with effect from 01/07/1993 without any change in original service conditions. By letter dated 18/03/1994, the petitioner's pay on promotion as a Junior Officer (Accounts) was fixed. It is the petitioner's contention that immediately after his promotion as a Junior Officer (Accounts), the petitioner's immediate senior and superior Mr.T.S.Kalika Mardhanan (Regional Accounts Officer ) took voluntary retirement and consequently the petitioner was left with no one to guide and correct him in account matters. As the petitioner was recently promoted in Accounts, the petitioner was not properly and fully conversant with the methodology and procedural part of his duties. It is the petitioner's case that certain group of officers from Bangalore office of the respondent No.1 Company was having grudge over the top officers of the Bombay area probably because they were of the view that certain Bombay officers were spending a large amount of money on marketing and promotional programmes of the respondent No.1 Company. In this tussle, according to the petitioner he was made a scapegoat.

(2.) Some time in the month of May 1995, the confidential internal audit of petitioner's office was carried out by Mr.R.P. Sanghavi A.G.M. ( Internal Audit) behind the back of the petitioner. The queries raised in the internal audit were never addressed to the petitioner for his explanation as is the practice. The petitioner was served with chargesheet on 19/06/1995. The charges of falsification of the Company's records, fraud, dishonesty in connection with the business and property of the Company, charge of willful insubordination of disobedience and negligence were levelled against him. The details of the charges are mentioned in chargesheet dated 19/06/1995.

(3.) It would be material to reproduce charges mentioned in the chargesheet.