9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of the report submitted by the Managing Director dated 18.11.1999, the following charges were framed against him: "Article No. 1: That the said Dr. Venkata Raidu, while functioning as A.P. Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (TRICOR), A.P. Hyderabad and presently working as Deputy Secretary (Administration) at Gurukulam A.P., Hyderabad violated the Orders issued by the Government from time to time and despite the specific instructions of the Managing Director, TRICOR, A.P. Hyderabad issued in the year 1997 and in the year 1998 in connection with depositing of the funds of TRICOR in various Cooperative/Private Banks. Article No. 2 : That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not release the amounts due to the implementing Agencies and Beneficiaries in time and there is a loss sustained to the TRICOR thereby putting the Corporation as well as the Government in embarrassing situation". Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and basing on the enquiry report, the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department issued a show cause notice dated 27.3.2001 to which he submitted his explanation. Finally, the Government issued Orders in G.O. Ms. No. 100, dated 5.9.2002 dismissing him from service. The tribunal observing that Charge Nos. 2 to 4 were not found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, considered the matter with reference to Charge No. 1 and observed that Charge No. 1 though proved could not be said to be misconduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In Charge No. 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the Orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these Orders have been mentioned in Charge No. 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the G.O which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that G.O, etc. but that was not done. Copies of the said G.Os or directions of the Government were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, Charge No. 1 was not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
