Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2006 (10) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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 w....