V SRINIVASAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMN EZHILAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent imposing the major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE petitioner, while serving as Office Assistant in the office of the 2nd respondent, gave rise to issue of an order of suspension and also issuance of charge memo by the respondent. After receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation and being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, domestic enquiry was ordered. Accordingly, the enquiry officer, who was appointed to conduct domestic enquiry, after affording opportunity to the parties, submitted his enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. THE disciplinary authority, after issuing a second show cause notice and on receipt of explanation, having not satisfied with the second explanation offered by the petitioner, passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the respondent.

(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent clearly indicates that the order passed by the Original Authority, namely, the 2nd respondent, has not whispered anywhere, as to on what reason the order of dismissal was warranted. The Original Authority, while passing the order of punishment, should have properly considered the case of the petitioner on the basis of the explanation offered by the petitioner and the findings of the enquiry officer. But, a mere reading of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, does not indicate, whether the 2nd respondent has applied his mind before passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner. That apart, a cursory look at the order passed by the Appellate Authority, also equally indicates that the appellate authority has also not given any single reason nor has applied his mind to the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is the duty of the Appellate Authority to deal with each ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal, but, nothing has been mentioned in the order, which indicates that the Appellate Authority also has merely confirmed, by a cryptic impugned order, the order passed by the Original Authority.