T NEETHIVILANGAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER OPERATIONS TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD KUMBAKONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was an employee of the respondents. While the petitioner was working as a Junior Superintendent, a charge memo was issued on 30.11.1983 by the first respondent, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to inform about the malpractice committed by a Co-employee by name Rajagopalan. In pursuant to the said charge memo, the petitioner was dismissed in and by the order dated 05.03.1994, subject to the approval of the Jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. However, the Industrial Tribunal has refused to approve the dismissal order in and by the order dated 13.07.1994. Challenging the same, the respondents filed a writ petition before this Court and as against the order of dismissal, a further appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court. THE respondent's further appeal was also rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1998. Accordingly, the order of termination passed against the petitioner dated 05.03.1994 was set aside.

(2.) SINCE even after the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court the petitioner was not reinstated, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.1498 of 1999 praying to direct the respondents to reinstate with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was allowed by this Hon'ble Court in and by his order dated 04.11.1999 as reported in (2001) 3 CTC 470 (T.Neethivilangan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Unit I, Kumbakonam) directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all the benefits by granting liberty to take action in accordance with law. With reference to a pending criminal case, the petitioner was also given liberty to file suit for damages depending upon the criminal case filed against him.

(3.) THEREAFTER by the order dated 09.08.2001 the first respondent has revoked the second show cause notice dated 11.02.1994 and issued a fresh show cause notice on 19.09.2004. The petitioner gave his explanation on 06.09.2001 and on 01.10.2001, alleging that the action of the respondents is contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Courts, amounting to victimisation and deliberate with a view to harass him. The petitioner also gave his explanation on the merits of the charges framed against him. An order of termination was passed by the first respondent stating that the explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory and the past conduct also warrants an order of dismissal. Challenging the order of dismissal dated 09.10.2001, the present writ petition has been filed.