R.Thirumurugan, v. The District Manager
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.11.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.31070 of 2017 R.Thirumurugan .. Petitioner -vs1. The District Manager, "TASMAC"Limited Thiruvannamalai District
2. The Senior Regional Manger "TASMAC" Salem - 16
3. The Managing Director, "TASMAC" Egmore, Chennai - 8 .. Respondents Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to impugned orders in Na.Ka.R.V.2/5068/2014 dated 31.03.2015 from the file of 1st respondent confirming the order of termination in Se.Mu.No.3990/2015/A dated 31.10.2015 on the file of 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service.
For Petitioner ::
Mr.P.Ganapathy
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the District Manager, TASMAC, Thiruvannamalai and another order confirming the same passed by the Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, Salem, 2nd respondent herein dated 31.10.2015.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing both the impugned orders submitted that when petitioner was serving as sales man in the year 2003 in Shop No.9245, he was suffering from MDR-TB from 31.10.2012 to 15.09.2014. As he was taking continuous treatment in the Government Hospital, Thiruvannamalai, he had informed the shop supervisor periodically by presenting leave letter. Adding further, he submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the fact, whether the shop supervisor had placed all his leave letters to the authorities. Finally, after recovering from the said illness,
petitioner submitted a letter dated 19.10.2014 along with medical certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Thiruvannmalai to the 1st respondent showing his willingness to resume duty. On receipt of the said representation, petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 23.02.2015 calling upon to submit his explanation on the following charges: "1. 31.10.2012 to 15.09.2014 absented from duty without prior intimation.
2. Caused loss of the sale in the above said period.
3. Disobeyed to higher official order
4. Acted upon against the TASMAC Rules.
5. Derelication on duty"
3. Continuing further, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the petitioner submitted his explanation, 1st respondent appointed the enquiry officer, who also took incharge and issued enquiry notice dated 28.02.2015 calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry scheduled on 04.03.2015 at the office of the 1st respondent. Then, the enquiry officer, simply received explanation from the petitioner and furnished enquiry report, whereas, no enquiry in terms of principles of natural justice was conducted and no witnesses were examined. Apparently, there was not even a presenting officer and the petitioner was not given opportunity to lead evidence and finally, enquiry officer submitted her report holding all the charges proved.
4.Moreover, counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, 1st respondent passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who also confirmed the order passed by the 1st respondent and dismissed the Appeal. Since the order of dismissal passed by the 1st respondent does not show that the petitioner was issued with 2nd show cause notice, taking a stand that even after filing of the report of the enquiry officer, he was issued with 2nd show cause notice and the copy of the same has not been furnished, he pleaded that principles of natural justice has been violated.
5. Admittedly, no purpose would be served by entertaining this Writ Petition. The reason is, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of two long years, ie., without obtaining prior approval. Today, petitioner submitted that he has produced leave application to the supervisor and only by obtaining prior approval, he proceeded on leave. While so, even at the time of enquiry before the enquiry officer, the petitioner has not pleaded or submitted an application that he had proceeded on leave from 31.10.2012 to 15.09.2014 only by obtaining prior approval. However, if this Court remands back the matter, the same would be merely an empty formality. The reason is, the factum of unauthorised absence for a period of two long years
from 31.10.2012 to 15.09.2014 should be properly explained by the petitioner and the same has not been done so. Therefore, Writ Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The District Manager, "TASMAC"Limited Thiruvannamalai District
2. The Senior Regional Manger "TASMAC" Salem - 16
3. The Managing Director, "TASMAC" Egmore, Chennai - 8 sm:28.12.2017 W.P.No.31070 of 2017