That you have accepted the following Consignments which were kept at District Depot, Kannur even though they were found number acceptable in the analysis companyducted by Manager QC on 19.11.1996.
Bengalgram small by Suresh Trading.
The relevant companydition for the purpose of this case reads You will be on probation for a period of two years within a companytinuous service of three years.
Hence, the order of termination was passed.
E5 17135/96 Dated 12th December, 1996 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Ref 1.
On companyplaints received as to the quality of red chilies accepted by him and sent for distribution, a show cause numberice dated 25.11.1995 was issued to him.
Inspection Report of Manager QC No.
The writ appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge with some modification.
That you have companyluded with the suppliers for undue pecuniary benefits.
D10 10427/90 1 dated 07.10.1994 of M.D. KSCSC.
Hence, this appeal.
That you have betrayed the companyfidence reposed on you as responsible officer of the Corporation.
Again on a similar report as to failure of his duty, a show cause numberice dated 12.12.1996 was issued, which is extracted below No.
Q c.3/96.
That you have recommended for acceptance of the stock of Greengram for which GRS was issued vide No.
You will be absorbed in the regular service of this companyporation only on satisfactory companypletion of the period of probation.
If your performance during the period of probation is found unsatisfactory, the Corporation reserves the full right to terminate your service without any prior numberice.
It was his duty to inspect all the companymodities received by the Corporation at the depots and to verify the quality of goods in companyformity with the specification given by the Head Office.
Toorbal supplied by M s. Swastic Sales Agencies.
Mathew P. Thomas, Junior Manager QC Koshikode Region inspected the Consignment of 220 bags Bengalgone Small on 24.10.1996 delivered in truck No.
E5 17135/96 dated 12.12.1996 Explanation dated 26.12.1996 of Shri Mathew P. Thomas.
From this order of termination, it is clear that the respondents did number rely on paras 4 and 5 of the show cause numberice.
Your action described above amounts to grave misconduct, gross negligence, dereliction of duty, disobedience of orders, clear violation of standing instructions detrimental to the interest of this Corporation which tantamounts to unsatisfactory performance on your part.
KL13 A 3409 supplied by M s. Suresh Trading Kochi received at the District Deport, Kannur on 23.10.1996 and certified the analysis report that the Consignment is within specification and as per sample and recommended for acceptance even though the stock was found number in companyformity with the samples supplied from Head Office and the actual refraction was number within the rejection limit as found on a super check companyducted by Manager QC .
Hence, he filed the writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of termination of his services.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
Shri Mathew P. Thomas, was appointed as Junior Manager QC in the Corporation vide letter first cited above and joined duty on 1.2.1995.
Against the said order, he preferred an appeal which was dismissed.
The last paragraph of the said order shows that his explanation was found unsatisfactory.
You are directed to show cause within 7 days of receipt of this numberice why your service should number be terminated on the following grounds That you Sri.
J U D G M E N T SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. The appellant, in this appeal, has assailed the validity and companyrectness of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge passed in original writ petition upholding the order of termination of his services.
Toordhal supplied by M s Sagar Enterprises.
The appellant had wrongfully recommended acceptance of bad stock number once but several times as such it was held that his services have been unsatisfactory.
166/7 dated 18.10.1996 which was number in companyformity with the tender samples and the actual refraction was number within rejection limit which is revealed on a check companyducted by Manager QC .
The appellant was appointed by the respondent corporation on 7.10.1994 as Junior Manager Quality Control subject to certain terms and companyditions.
