To this the petitioner submitted a reply stating that all the charges are fake and false.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.1983 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in C. W. P. No.
According to the petitioner he was annoyed with the petitioner because of his union activities.
2 got more annoyed.
the petitioner made a representation for cancellation of the transfer on the ground that he was already half way through his legal study and that the transfer was mala fide.
On 13.5.1981 an order transferring the petitioner to Dalhousie was passed, even though the petitioner had been earlier granted permission on 23.7.79 to do his 3 years Law companyrse as an evening student.
It is stated that the petitioner actively participated in highlighting the demands.
It is stated that the petitioners leave was cancelled and the petitioner challenged the same in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh but the case was adjourned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition No.
Respondent No.
The gravamen of the charges is that while working in the Transport Wing of the Corporation the petitioner facilitated and abetted the embezziment of Rs.
Meanwhile, a chargesheet was issued on 21st August, 1981 framing certain charges.
100 by numberensuring that the amount found was in excess and that he failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully.
After training he was transferred to the Office of the Area Manager, Simla and was posted as an Accountant.
His companyditions of service were governed by the Regulations made by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
Meanwhile the petitioners services were terminated with effect from 8th January, 1982 stating that they are numberlonger required and one months pay in lieu of numberice would be paid in terms and companyditions of his appointment letter and provisions of Staff Regulations of the Corporation.
The petitioner submitted a study leave application for one year.
In April 1980, the respondent No.
13560 of 1983.
The petitioner was the General Secretary of the Union.
The following Order of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. The petitioner was directly appointed as an Accountant in the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Corporation for short on 28.8.78 He was on probation in the Transport Wing of the Corporation.
But he was granted only 90 days leave in the first instance with full pay and allowances and later on half pay and subsequently without pay he was granted extra ordinary leave.
2 was posted as the new Managing Director.
86 of 1983.
The other charge is that he made some fictitious entries in the Cash Book and the fourth charge is that he made certain information public without the permission of the Managing Director.
The employees Union took up the matter and demanded the Management to take necessary action and also made some demands on behalf of the Union.
The petitioner detected certain irregularities in the Transport Wing and wrote a letter dated 19.6.1980 to the Transport Officer pointing out the financial irregularities and embezzlements companymitted by the then Cashier.
P. Rao and H. J. Zaviri for the Petitioner.
K. Kanth and C.P. Pandey for the Respondents.
