Through Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.30883 30884 of 2012, the appellant challenged the impugned order of the High Court by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No.
431 of 2011 to the Writ Petition No.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the pensionary and other monetary benefits which accrued to him against the service provided by him to the respondent Company?
292 of 2009 S B by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, urging various facts and legal companytentions in justification of his claim.
The appellant thereafter, issued a numberice to Sh.
Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in these appeals.
Despite that, the appellant did number produce anything on record to prove that he was doing something to protect the interest of the employer.
129 of 2009 S B and order dated 28.6.2011 passed in the Review Application No.
Also, regarding the claim made by the appellant that other people against whom the charge of negligence was made were number proceeded against, it was held by the High Court that though initiating simultaneous disciplinary proceedings against other persons involved in the issue may have been possible, the appellant at numbertime, made any request to any authority to companyduct disciplinary proceeding against him along with others.
However, after the companyclusion of enquiry and six days prior to the retirement date of the appellant, he was served with the numberice of termination.
129 of 2009 and Review Application No.
431 of 2011 filed by the appellant against the termination Order of his service.
Secondly, numbercharges of embezzlement or misappropriation have been leveled against the appellant either in the charge sheet or anywhere in the report.
Thirdly, the term irregularity used in the Enquiry Report has been, without any reason, companyverted to the term malpractice in the termination order served on the appellant.
It is the further claim of the appellant that his superiors who were also involved in the chain of events have been relieved from any accusation.
His juniors were also meted with minor punishment of stopping one increment, whereas the appellant was served with the numberice of termination just six days prior to his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation thereby negating pensionary benefits for which the appellant is legally entitled to in lieu of three decades of service rendered to the respondent Company.
He therefore carried out a physical store checking and a report was prepared accordingly on 30.8.2008.
Through the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.30877 of 2012, the appellant claims the pensionary and other monetary service benefits due to him against three decades of service rendered by him which has been withheld by the respondent Company.
B.S. Rana, the in charge of Canteen Store Operation on 10.9.2008.
30883 30884 of 2012 are filed questioning the companyrectness of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No.
It is further the case of the appellant that it is he who carried out a routine verification of the stock in the month of July August, 2008 when he realized that there were some major discrepancies in the stocks of tea leaves and milk powder in the canteen which was under his supervision by virtue of being in charge of the canteen HR .
129 of 2009 S B , whereas Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.30877 of 2012 is filed against the judgment dated 22.2.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.
The Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points would arise for companysideration Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the Order of his dismissal served on him by the respondent Company?
The appellant accepted the charges of negligence on his part and also explained that the negligence was a part of the chain system which included his superiors as well as his subordinates.
Since there was numberreply to the aforesaid numberice, the appellant informed the superior authority regarding the matter.
Therefore, it is urged by the appellant that a bona fide mistake has been portrayed as a malicious act on the part of the appellant for extraneous reasons.
The suppliers Gupta Co. and Bombay Sales have admitted to the discrepancy in supply.
He was to retire on 24.3.2009.
They further admitted that the goods which have number been supplied against the Bill were lying with them and they were ready to supply the deficient material.
To what relief is the appellant entitled to?
Gopala Gowda, J. Leave granted.
The appellant joined the service of the respondent Company in 1970 and rose to the post of D.G.M. Deputy General Manager.
Firstly, the report of the Enquiry Officer numberhere mentions the loss of Rs.35 lakhs caused by the appellant as is blamed against him.
The appellant has filed two separate Civil Appeals before this Court.
It is the case of the appellant that four months prior to his retirement, an enquiry was initiated against him.
It is further the claim of the appellant that his termination, which is based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, is number sustainable for various reasons.
A numberice was also sent to the suppliers of the tea leaves and milk powder.
