SATHISH NINAN, J.

1. The Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., its Board of Directors and the Managing Director are in appeal. The first respondent was an employee under the first appellant. While he was working as Assistant Manager (Projects) in the Thiruvananthapuram Dairy, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him levelling the following charges:-

"1. Wilful insubordination and disobediance of the personal direction given by the Chief Executive of the organization and the orders issued by the Controlling Officer.

2. Negligence of work and dereliction of duty in speedy execution of balance pending works at Trivandrum Dairy Project by his unauthorized absenteeism thereby creating difficulties in “C.R.” operating the Bank Account of the site and delay in checking the bill submitted by the civil contractor resulting in suspension of civil works at site, especially during the crucial period when the balance works at Trivandrum Dairy Project are to be completed on priority basis racing against time, so as to inaugurate the Dairy by VVIP as scheduled.

3. Evading the responsibility in taking final measurements for the Civil and ETP works at Trivandrum Dairy Site for the contractors to prepare the final bills and verification of final bills at site, thereby creating difficulties to the Federation.

4. Unauthorised absence from Headquarters without permission of superiors.”

2. The enquiry officer found the delinquent guilty of charge No.1. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. It was confirmed by the Board of Directors. Steps initiated before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, for rescinding the resolution turned futile. Thereupon, the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge as per the impugned judgment interfered with the finding of guilt and imposition of penalty. The employer is in appeal.

3. Heard.

4. The first respondent was the engineer in charge of the project at Thiruvananthapuram. One C.K. Jayakumar, who was the Deputy Engineer, was transferred from the Thiruvananthapuram Dairy to the Kannur Dairy. Instructions were given to the first respondent and one K.S. Vijayakumar to take over charge of the duties of Sri. C.K. Jayakumar. The directions given over phone on 12.08.1991 was confirmed as per office order dated 14.08.1991 and was instructed to take charge at the latest by 17.08.1991. Since the directions were not complied with, on 31.08.1991 further instructions were given by the Manager (Projects) directing compliance of the earlier order. In spite of the same, the first respondent refused to take charge. Thereupon Managing Director personally instructed the first respondent to comply with the orders already issued by the Manager (Projects). Without complying with the directions, the first respondent went on leave. Thereupon, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent.

5. As noticed supra, only charge no. (1), regarding insubordination, was found against the delinquent. The same was interfered with by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge was of the view that the enquiry officer ought to have considered whether the explanation offered by the delinquent for disobeying the instructions of the employer was plausible or not. It was noticed that the first respondent had explained to the employer that without a substitute in the place of Sri. C.K. Jayakumar there would be increase in the volume of work; that he suggested entrustment of the work to one Sri. K.S. Vijayakumar; that he pointed out that there was no framed system for execution of project work; that he is a civil engineer expected to supervise civil works and is not qualified to supervise mechanical or electrical works; and also that he had requested to be relieved from the Thiruvananthapuram Dairy to rejoin his permanent post at Ernakulam. The learned single Judge was of t