← Library
Madras High CourtWP/34800/2015allowed

R.Anbazhagan, v. The District Manager,

2016-09-29Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On : 28.09.2016 Delivered On : 29.09.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.No.34800 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 R.Anbazhagan ..

Petitioner vs.

The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), No.62/70, Anna Salai, Tiruvannamalai-606 601.

..

Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with their proceedings in Na.Ka.R.V.2/1920/2014 dated 04.04.2015 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service, monetary and attendant benefit.

For Petitioner :

M/s.J.Lesi Saravanan For Respondent :

Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan Standing Counsel for TASMAC

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in connection with the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.R.V.2/1920/2014 dated 04.04.2015 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service, monetary and attendant benefits.

2. The petitioner was initially selected for appointment as Supervisor on 04.02.2010 for a consolidated sum of Rs.2,000/- in the respondent organization and thereafter, he was posted to Shop No.9215. While so, on 21.04.2014, the District Manager

conducted surprise inspection in Shop No.9215 and found certain irregularities like water mixing etc., for which the petitioner and others were issued with charge memo dated 26.04.2014 by the same District Manager calling for explanation and the petitioner and others were placed under suspension by the District Manager on 16.08.2014. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry, wherein no witness was examined and no documents were marked and the respondent, vide order dated 04.04.2015, dismissed the petitioner from service, based on the Lab Report which showed that the bottles were found to be unfit for sale. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at the time of inspection, the District Manager has acted as an eyewitness to the incident since there was no independent witness and having acted as an eyewitness, he should not have passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner and the Enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and therefore, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and absolutely there is no admission of the alleged guilt whatsoever by the petitioner and hence, prays for quashing the impugned order.

4. Per contra, Mr.B.Nedunchezhian, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/TASMAC would submit that enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and only on the basis of Lab Report, the petitioner was terminated from service by the respondent and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Keeping the submission made on either side, I have gone through the entire materials available on record.

6. The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the District Manager is the complainant and he himself has assumed the role of judge and passed the order of dismissal from service and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. This Court, in an identical situation in W.P.No.28066 of 2014 dated 05.03.2015, has set aside the order of dismissal for the simple reason that the respondent in that case who detected the irregularities himself passed the ultimate order of dismissal and thus directed the respondent therein to reinstate the petitioners therein into service forthwith without backwages and further granted liberty to the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with the Regulations, if so advised. The above cited order is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

7. In the light of the above cited order dated 05.03.2015 made in W.P.No.28066 of 2014, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.R.V.2/1920/2014 dated 04.04.2015 is set aside and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith without backwages and it is open to the respondent to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with the Regulations, if he is so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar jvm To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), No.62/70, Anna Salai, Tiruvannamalai-606 601.

+1 cc to M/s.J.Lesi Saravanan Advocate sr 56300 +1 cc to M/s.B.Neduchezian Advocate sr 56174 W.P.No.34800 of 2015 cp(co) aa04/11/2016