S. PADMAKUMAR Vs. THE KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the petitioner was working as a counter clerk in a theatre owned by the 1st respondent, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for certain charges of misconduct, which ultimately resulted in a notice directing the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed on him. The petitioner filed a reply stating that no witnesses were examined in his presence in the enquiry and the petitioner knew about the examination of witnesses only when he received the copy of the enquiry report. Therefore, he took the contention that the enquiry is violative of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable. But disregarding the petitioner's contention, by Ext. P4, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 2561/2008, in which this Court directed the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner which resulted in Ext. P5 order of rejection of the appeal. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent seeking to controvert the allegations of the petitioner.

(3.) THE primary contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry is vitiated by non -compliance with the principles of natural justice insofar as the evidence relied upon in the enquiry was taken in the absence of the petitioner and the petitioner was never informed about the examination of witnesses whose evidences have been relied on in the enquiry report to find the petitioner guilty. In the counter affidavit filed, there is no specific statement to the effect that the witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner or that the petitioner had been given a notice regarding examination of witnesses. The enquiry file has also not been produced before me to disprove the allegations of the petitioner. In view of the above, I am constrained to find that the petitioner had not been given adequate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the management whose depositions have been relied upon to find the petitioner guilty of the charges against him. Therefore, the enquiry and the consequential orders are vitiated by non -compliance with the principles of natural justice.