Allowed

G.Subash Chandra Bose v. the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation L

Kerala HC16 Jul 2013WP(C)/10209/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of termination. It held that the dismissal order was unsustainable after a civil court judgment in favor of the petitioner was reversed in appeal by the respondent company itself.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal order quashed; respondent directed to pay arrears of salary and retirement benefits within three months with 10% interest on default.

G.Subash Chandra Bose Vs the Kerala Agro Industries… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013/25TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 10209 of 2005 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED, EEC MARKET, MARKET P.O. MOOVATTUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED, KISSAN JYOTHI, FORT P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 023, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR ADV. SMT.PRIYA MAHESH

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C)NO.10209/2005

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶15

EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO VIDE NO.CE/1/171 DATED 14-3-2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO VIDE NO.Da-180/944 DATED 3-8-2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
EXT.P4(a) PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.58/2001 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT SESSIONS COURT, DELHI.
EXT.P4(b): PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.58/2001 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT SESSIONS COURT, DELHI.
EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER VIDE ENQUIRY NO.11/2003 DATED 29-11-2003.
EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 11- 12-2003 IN W.P.(C) NO.39045/2003 W
EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT DATED 12-11-2004 OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P7(a): PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 18-11-1998 VIDE NO.BE/11/98- 99/6066-67 OF M/S.BETA ENGINEERS, DELHI TO THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., KOTTARAKKARA.
EXT.P7(b): PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.BE/12/99/1119 DATED 15-12-1999 OF M/S.BETA ENGINEERS, DELHI TO THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO VIDE NO.DA NO.180/3017 DATED 18-11-2004 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 23-12-2004.
EXT.P10: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO VIDE NO.DA/180/150 DATED 17-1-2005 OF THE RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P11: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 1-2-2005.
EXT.P12: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO NO.DA/180/413 DATED 17-03-2005 OF THE RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9-1-2012 IN R.F.A.NO.418/2003.

¶16

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

¶17

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY BOARD OF THE EXTRAC	OF THE AGENDA NOTES OF THE 210TH MEETING OF THE DIRECTORS HELD ON 29TH JANUARY, 2005 ALONG WITH T OF RESOLUTION.
EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY COURT OF NEW DELHI	OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. 567 OF 2002 IN THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI, DATED 30-1-2003.
EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY	OF THE LETTER DATED 14-11-00 ISSUED BY THE BETA
ENGINEERS CORPORATIO	TO THE REGIONAL ENGINEER OF THE RESPONDENT N NO.BE/11/2000/718-19.
Nkm

/true copy/

P.S. TO JUDGE.

B.P.RAY, J.

W. P. C No.10209 of 2005

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard. The petitioner has been terminated from service by Ext.P12 order with immediate effect and further he was directed to remit a sum of ` 4,99,500/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order as decreed in Suit No.567/02 of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the above impugned order.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as Divisional Engineer in Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (KAICL), Kozhikode and he has been issued with Ext.P1 memo dated 14/03/03 by the respondent. The allegation against the petitioner is that irrecoverable loss has been sustained to KAICL in connection with purchase of Golden Rocker Sprayer and Knapsack Sprayer from M/s Beta

¶26

W. P. C No.10209 of 2005 -2-

¶27

Engineer's Delhi. During the relevant period, the petitioner was working as Divisional Engineer in the KAICL at Kottarakkara. To Ext.P1 memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation bringing it to the notice of the respondent that the various allegations levelled against him are absolutely baseless. Since his explanation was not found satisfactory, Ext.P3 charges were framed. The charges levelled against the petitioner in Ext.P3 are as follows:-

¶28

Your action in returning 215 Golden Rocker Sprayers and 65 Knapsack Sprayers, the value of which is 354028/- [before considering proportionate freight charges], without ensuring that the recipient Mr.M.A.Jose was authorized for the purpose by M/s Beta Engineers, Delhi. Your action in returning the goods to the said Mr.M.A.Jose and consequent orders of the Honb'le Court caused huge loss of 4,99,500/- with future interest at 24% to the Corporation and hence your aforesaid conduct, if proved, amounts to the following misconducts as defined in the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Staff Bye-laws, 1971.

¶29

After conducting domestic enquiry against the

¶30

petitioner, Ext.P7 report was submitted and the petitioner

¶31

was asked to show cause why the order of dismissal shall not be passed and after hearing the petitioner Ext.P12 order

¶32

-3-

¶33

W. P. C No.10209 of 2005

¶34

was passed. The relevant portion of Ext.P12 is quoted herein

¶35

below:-

¶36

The nucleus of the case are (1) whether Mr.M.A. Jose is recordically authorised to receive back the sprayers for and on behalf of M/s Beta Engineers, (2) whether the sprayer stated to be returned by Shri. G. Subash Chandra Bose through Mr.M.A. Jose has been acknowledged by M/s Beta Engineers and (3) whether Shri G. Subash Chandra Bose has informed M/s Beta Engineers recordically about the return of goods and obtained credit note for the value of goods so returned. Being a responsible officer of the Corporation Shri.G.Subash Chandra Bose should have returned the goods in the manner prescribed i.e. through Lorry service to M/s Beta Engineers directly with proper records. By not doing so, he failed to perform the duties entrusted to him, which a man in his position could be reasonable expected to perform in the circumstances and thereby committed the misconduct of negligence of duties. Further, it is evident from records that the alleged return of goods to a person of his choice so as to dispose off the same otherwise constitutes misappropriation of cash/kind leading to dishonesty and fraud on the Corporation. All the above-proved misconducts amounts to acts detrimental to the interest of the Corporation or its good name.

¶37

Since disciplinary proceedings were initiated in

¶38

pursuance to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, the matter

¶39

W. P. C No.10209 of 2005

¶40

-4-

¶41

was taken in appeal before the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.418/03 by the respondent company. In the above appeal filed by the respondent company, the judgment and decree has been reversed with a finding as follows:-

¶42

A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. A civil court puts all the evidence which have been led in a melting pot so as to determine the final picture which has to emerge. In my opinion, in view of the admitted documents/ correspondence on record, there is no manner of doubt that Mr.M.A.Jose was an agent acting for the respondent/plaintiff and in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, LIC (supra), Mr. M.A.Jose clearly had ostensible general authority which was clear from the correspondence between the parties and also the course of dealing, and therefore, the respondent-plaintiff/principal was clearly bound to honour the actions of the agent, Mr.M.A.Jose of having received back the goods as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, LIC (supra). The respondent-plaintiff/principal is estopped in the facts of the case from denying that actual authority existed in Mr.M.A.Jose in taking back the goods.

¶43

Since the respondent themselves filed the appeal

¶44

and got it reversed, the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges cannot stand in the eye of law. Accordingly, Ext.P12 order directing dismissal of the petitioner from

¶45

W. P. C No.10209 of 2005 -5-

¶46

service is unsustainable and respondent is directed to pay the arrears of salary and retiral benefits to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment failing which they shall be liable to pay 10% interest from the date of default till the date of payment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/B.P.RAY JUDGE

kns/-

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

G.Subash Chandra Bose v. the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Subash Chandra Bose v. the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahmathulla P.P. Vs Union of India

R.K.Das, President, Malayattil Foundatio Vs Asst.Engineer, Kse Board and Another

Elizabeth Sipri Vs Union of India & Another

Dr.N.R.Nisha Vs University of Kerala

V.Gourikutty Vs State of Kerala

N.Shabeeb Vs Rta., Tvm