Case: Management of M/s. Indian Express &amp; Chronical Press Vs. M.C. Kapur

2. The respondent was ain the service of the Indian Express and Chronicle Press, New Delhi, ASociety styled as the Indian Express Employees Thrift and CreditSociety (to be hereinafter called the EmployeesSociety) was set up in 1957. The membership of this Society was confined to the employees of the Indian Express and Chronicle Press. The President of the EmployeesSociety wrote to the General Manager of the Press that the Managing Committee of the Society had after a preliminary enquiry found that M. C. Kapur who was the Treasurer, was prima facie guilty of certain serious financial irregularities, including defalcation of the Societys funds.

Reasoning: 7. Mr. Pai who appears for the appellant, relies primarily on clause (i) of the Standing Order 15 (2). He has not been able to show us how he can bring the findings which were given by the Enquiry Officer or the charges which were preferred against M. C. Kapur within the purview of that clause. No one charged M. C. Kapur with riotous or disorderly behaviour during the working hours. The only other head under which he could be charged was that he had committed an act subversive of discipline. The charges which were preferred against him did not seen to relate, in any manner, to the question of discipline. We are wholly unable to accede to the contention of Mr. Pai that the charges which were preferred and which were found proved by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of which the dismissal was ordered by the General Manager, constituted acts subversive of discipline.8. It is true that according to the Enquiry Officers findings charges with regard to defalcation of certain amount and falsification of accounts etc. had been found proved but that is not the matter on which any final decision was given or could be given by the Tribunal and those findings were only of the Enquiry Officer although it was observed that the enquiry had been conducted in a fair manner. In view of the findings of the Tribunal the charges which were found proved by the Enquiry Officer would not be covered even by clause (b) of the Standing Order 15 (2). At any rate, on the finding of the Tribunal the order which was made was fully justified and we find no reason to interfere with it.