@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Manikumar, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.11.2008, dismissing his revision petition seeking for reinstatement in service.
2. Pleadings disclose that the Petitioner was appointed as Salesman in the Respondent Society on 08.09.2000 by the then elected board of directors. On 12.11.2007, he was placed under suspension. After conducting an enquiry, he was terminated from service that there was shortage of stock and misappropriation. The Petitioner has preferred a statutory revision petition before the Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Vellore Region, Vellore District, the 1st Respondent. The said revision petition dated 22.07.2008 has been dismissed on 25.11.2008, and the same is impugned in this writ petition.
3. Assailing the correctness of the order, Mr. C. Prakasam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondents have failed to consider that the Petitioner is not liable for the alleged shortage of essential commodities and sale of non-controlled items on credit basis. According to the learned Counsel, though a charge of temporary misappropriation was levelled, the Petitioner has remitted the entire amount, thereafter and therefore, the 1st Respondent, ought to have imposed a minor penalty other than termination. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent has failed to take action against a Superintendent, who was working as a Special Officer in Tamil Nadu Water Board Employees Thrift and Credit Society, Katpadi, Vellore District, in respect of similar allegations of
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner.
5. Material on record shows that while the Petitioner, was working as a Salesman in Kadambur and Pallitheru Fair Price shops, there was a shortage of stock, as well as misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 17,779.07. Based on the enquiry report dated 08.03.2008, a show cause notice has been issued to the writ Petitioner on 23.05.2008. In response to the same, the Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.06.2008, admitting that the above said amount, had been spent towards his family expenses. On the aspect of shortage of stock, he has submitted that the commodities in the Fair Price Shop were not saleable and that therefore they were sold on loan. He has further submitted in his application that the gunny bags were bitten by rats, which has resulted in shortage of goods.
6. As the Petitioner himself, had voluntarily admitted misappropriation of funds, the Special Officer has found charges as proved. Besides, there was no certificate from the authorities that the gunny bags were bitten by rats causing shortage of commodities.
7. In view of the categorical admission of the Petitioner regarding satisfactory, the disciplinary authority after concurring with the finding of fact, that there was temporary misappropriation and loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 17,779.07, has terminated the Petitioner from service on 03.06.2008.
8. While dealing with the aspect of misappropriation, in
12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation''s funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.
At paragraph 13, the Supreme Court held that
13 ...in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment.
9. As the Petitioner himself has admitted misappropriation, the contention that there should be a detailed enquiry into the misconduct is are disputed. The finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and concurred by the revisional authority. It is a well settled principle of law that findings of fact cannot be interfered in writ jurisdiction unless it is perverse. Going through the material on record, this Court is unable to find any perversity, warranting interference.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
