STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. M NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 30-4-1996 in OA Nos. 3804/91 and 3805/91.

(3.) The admitted facts are that on 10-2-1987, the respondents misbehaved with two ladies and outraged their modesty and took them into the lock up in the earlier hours, i.e., at 0200 hours. When two persons intervened, they were beaten by them. As a consequence, an enquiry was held and a criminal case was also instituted against the respondents. When they were asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, they failed to appear in spite of several opportunities given to them. As a result, the Enquiry Officer was constrained to record the findings and recommend imposition of the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. After the receipt of the report, the disciplinary authority had issued notices to the respondents as to why major penalty should not be given to the respondents. The respondents asked for opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and sought fresh enquiry on the ground that by that date the criminal case filed against the respondents was withdrawn. The competent authority declined to accede to the request and imposed the punishment of removal from service. Feeling aggrieved, they filed O.As. in the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the O.As. on the ground that the disciplinary authority did not consider the evidence to justify the finding of proof of charges and violated the principles of natural justice. We find that the Tribunal was not justified in reaching the conclusion for the reason that the Tribunal itself has categorically recorded findings at pages 8-10 as under: