A S VENKATESWARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal arises out of the Order in W.P.No.14467 of 1991 dismissing the Writ Petition and declining to quash the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the Appellant.

(2.) THE brief facts, which led to filing of Writ Petition, are as follows: Appellant joined Government Pressure Die Casting Unit, Guindy, then under the Control of the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tamil Nadu as a Foreman Trainee on 10.3.1965. He has held various positions in Department of Industries and Commerce and he was promoted as Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce in Salem. During July, 1974, he was deputed to Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO) and posted as Assistant Development Officer in the Raw Material Division. Within months of his deputation to SIDCO, Government selected him for the assignment of "Management by Objectives" Adviser for SIDCO as well as the Industries Department. For various irregularities noticed in the distribution of raw materials during the period when he worked as Manager, Raw Materials and also for staying away from duty unauthorisedly, 17 charges were framed against the Appellant. THE Appellant was served with a memo dated 15.6.1987 containing as many as 17 charges. On receipt of charge memo, Appellant made a request before the Chairman and Managing Director for supply of relevant documents pertaining to the memo dated 15.6.1987 to enable him to answer the charges.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for Appellant submitted that the non-issuance of further show cause notice as per Rule 6.17 of SIDCO, Service Rules, there is violation of principles of natural justice, which would vitiate the imposing of punishment. It was further argued that even though Charge Memo proceeds as if numerous complaints have been received against the Appellant copies of such complaints were never furnished inspite of the request made by the Appellant, which proves that the charges are vague in nature. The entire proceedings was actuated by malice. LEARNED Senior Counsel would further submit that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence warranting interference and while so the learned single Judge was not right in dismissing the Writ Petition.