MUNIRUDDIN Vs. PEIRCE LESLIE AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition was working as a storekeeper under respondent 1 from 1952. Respondent 1 took disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for certain alleged misconduct and dismissed him as a result of the enquiry held on 20 August, 1962. The petitioner thereupon presented an appeal under S. 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (Madras Act 36 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act to respondent 2, who was the prescribed appellate authority under that sub-section. Respondent 2 by his order dated 24 November, 1962 dismissed that appeal of the petitioner. This writ petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the said order of respondent 2 to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order as the Court deems fit.

(2.) The material facts are these. On 6 April, 1962 respondent 1 received a complaint against the petitioner that he was insubordinate and was negligent in his duties. On being called upon to explain his conduct, the petitioner refused to offer any explanation and thereupon disciplinary proceedings ware initiated. The following charges ware framed against the petitioners : (1) Wilful insubordination and disobedience to the order of the superior. (2) Neglect and negligence of duty. (3) Acts subversive of discipline.

(3.) Respondent 1 appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the above charges. The enquiry officer after due enquiry submitted his report to respondent 1. On the basis of that report, respondent 1 came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been established and so he discharged the petitioner from service with effect from 21 August, 1962. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal (S. & E.A.C. No. 34 of 1962) to respondent 2 challenging the correctness of the decision of respondent 1 on various grounds. The appeal came up for hearing on 16 October, 1962 and on that date the pleader for respondent 1 requested for an adjournment on the ground that the counter had not been signed by his party and so the Court adjourned the case to 5 November, 1962. On 5 November, 1962 at the request of the pleader for the petitioner, the case was adjourned to 24 November, 1962. On that day the case was called. Sri B. A. Somayaji, the pleader for the petitioner, filed a memo praying for an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner had to attend the Munsif's Court at Buntwal as he had been bound over by that Court. Respondent 2 refused his request and made the following order :