IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1315 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23817/2003 Dated 12/04/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT1 & 2: ------------------------------------- 1. THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FACT CORPORATE OFFICE, P.O.UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING), THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC: ---------------------------------------- T.SELVARAJ, G-3, RENGAPRIYA RESIDENCY, 43/45, K.V.LAYOUST, 2ND STEET, JAY NAGAR,4TH BLOCK, BANGLORE-560 011, DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AS ASSISTANT SALES MANAGER, MPS OFFICE, FACT MARKETING DIVISION, UDYOGAMANDAL. (NOW RESIDING AT C/O.S.L. ARTHI HILARIAN 67, BHEL OFFICERS LAY OUT, SRK GARDENS JAYANAGAR BANGLORE - 560 041). R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN SRI.KAYALATT KUTTYKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1315 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard Mr.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein was Assistant Sales Manager under the appellant herein and an order of dismissal passed against him as per Ext.P15 alleging that he committed a grave misconduct, i.e., to order release of the stocks without verifying whether the earlier cheques of the dealers were cleared or not. 3. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the learned Single Judge, contending that the enquiry is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as important and relevant documents sought by him for conducting the enquiry at his behest were not supplied to him. Therefore, he was on a disadvantageous position to defend his case. The other contention raised by the respondent before the learned Single Judge was, the W.A. No. 1315 of 2011 -:2:- discrimination so far as imposition of penalty against him, when compared to the penalty imposed against the Depot Officer and Senior Regional Manager. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the defence put forth by the present appellant ultimately opined that the penalty imposed against the respondent herein was shockingly disproportionate for the following reasons: (1) the appellants fail to furnish the documents sought by the respondent to assist him to conduct his defence in the enquiry properly. (2) respondent alone was not in-charge of the release of the stocks. (3) the Depot Officer and Senior Regional Manager were given lesser punishment than the respondent Assistant Sales Manager. With these observations, the writ petition came to be allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appellant is before us. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even if there was no written instructions as such given to the respondent employee either at the time of his appointment or subsequently, the very nature of the job would indicate that he was required to exercise minimum delinquency while conducting his duties as Assistant Sales Manager. W.A. No. 1315 of 2011 -:3:- 5. It is not in dispute that the present respondent was not the only person who was the whole and sole in-charge of the depot concerned. Above him the Senior Regional Manager and below him, the Depot Officer were also in-charge of the depot in question. The grievance of the appellant was, the stocks came to be released to a particular dealer without first ascertaining whether previous cheques issued by the said dealer were honoured or not. Unless one knows what exactly were the duties and responsibilities assigned to the respondent herein, certainly cannot allege that he violated the duties and responsibilities assigned to him. The Circular seems to have come into existence as per Ext.P13, subsequent to the controversy in question which says the whole and sole responsibility of the Depot would be with the Depot Officer. 6. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any other material indicating the duties and responsibilities assigned to the present respondent, the learned Single Judge was justified that adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant management. Our view is fortified by reason that the Senior Regional Manager was imposed with the punishment of censure W.A. No. 1315 of 2011 -:4:- and the Depot Officer was imposed with the punishment of withholding one annual increment due on 01.09.2002 without cumulative effect. If the sole responsibility was on the Assistant Sales Manager, why Senior Regional Manager and Depot Officer were inflicted with the punishment is also not explained to us. Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion, there is no material placed before us warranting interference with the opinion of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb