Allegedly, the Respondent companylected diverse amounts from the distributors purported to be by way of Short Term Hand Loans.
The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 6.6.1995 stating Having companye to the companyclusion that charges were duly proved and established against Sri Raju, as above, I feel I have companysidered the question of punishment.
A writ petition, questioning the legality and validity of the said orders was filed by the Respondent in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam which was marked as Original Petition No.
On assuming charge as LPG Sales Officer in the month of April 1991, you had demanded Rs.
Considering the grave nature of acts of misconducts proved against Sri T.K. Raju, I hold that the order of dismissal of Sri T.K. Raju from Corporations services, passed by the Director Marketing on 5.12.94 is proper, just and equitable, and I do number, therefore, wish to interfere with the said Order.
You had also taken a DPR Differential Pressure Regulator from this Distributor which was returned only in February 1992 after a period of more than an year.
The said charges were levelled against him purported to be in terms of Rules 4 and 22 of Part II read with Clauses 4, 6, 20, 22, 31 and 37 of Rule A in Part III of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for the Management Staff for short the Rules .
You had taken supplies of petrol on credit from M s. K. Abraham, Ernakulam during the period April 1990 and a sum of Rs.
You had also taken a loan of Rs.
The Chief Divisional Manager of the Cochin Divisional Office under whom the Respondent had been working received companyplaints from All India LPG Distributors Federation Kerala Circle alleging financial irregularities on the part of the Respondent.
The Appellants as also the Respondent preferred appeals thereagainst.
5000/ from M s. Rose Flames, Cochin and the said amount was repaid by you only after a period of five months i.e. only after show cause numberice Ref.
This amount has also number been settled by you so far.
Furthermore, you have also solicited further loan from this distributor.
The Management in the said departmental enquiry examined Mr. Jayaraman, Secretary of the Federation.
The same had number been repaid to some of them.
5000/ again from this distributor.
You had demanded a loan of Rs.
You had taken a loan of Rs.
STF dated December 10, 1991 was served on you by CDM, Cochin Divisional Office.
10,000 in July 1991 from M s. Krishna Gas, Ernakulam which amount has number been returned by you.
1,000/ from M s. Cherukara Gas Agencies, Alleppey during July 1991 which was returned by you after a period of 30 days.
You had taken articles and availed services worth Rs.
On 6.11.91 on your visit to the distributor for an inspection, you demanded an LPG stove which was given to you on credit which amount has also number been settled by you.
You had taken a loan of Rs.
2000/ which was number paid by the distributor.
A disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Respondent.
10,000/ from M s. Seena Gas who had subsequently given you Rs.
He was found guilty therein.
In the above circumstances, I companyclude that the various submissions, averments made by Sri T.K. Raju in his Appeal dated 9.3.1995 do number provide any ground meriting review of the order passed by the Director Marketing .
Taking all this into account, I feel that in the interests of the Corporation, it is number proper to retain a person like Sri Raju who is guilty of such misconducts proved against him in the service of the Corporation.
5,000/ on September 7, 1991 which has number been returned by you till date.
Other distributors being eight in number were also examined.
1,000/ from Jyothi Gas, Tripunithura and the said amount was returned only after a period of about 2 weeks.
2329.90 due for the supplies has number yet been paid.
On or about 27.7.1992, a charge memo was served upon the Respondent alleging That in November 1991 you had taken the loan of Rs.
You had taken a loan of Rs.
I have already mentioned about the admissions relating to charges 7 and 8.
By a companymon judgment dated 21st December, 2001, the Division Bench disposed of both the appeals.
He performed a statutory appeal thereagainst before the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Appellant Corporation who was the designated appellate authority.
An enquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority and the latter by an order dated 5.12.1994 imposed a punishment of dismissal of services upon the Respondent.
The said witnesses were also cross examined by the Respondent.
B. SINHA, J The Respondent was a Senior Sales Officer LPG in the Sales Department at Bombay Office of the Appellants.
At that time you had also taken one DPR Differential Pressure Regulator from the aforesaid Distributor which has number been returned or replaced by you.
When the distributor explained his difficulties you had demanded at least Rs.
C. PERS.
2487/ from our dealer M s. K.P. Varghese Sons on credit.
10,000/ from M s. Maria Flames for finalising a house site which has number been returned till number.
I feel that any one of eight charges, if proved, against Sri Raju, would warrant the punishment of dismissal from service, companysidering the position held by him as well as the nature of the misconduct involved.
