B RAMAMOORTHY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TASMAC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed against the order of the second respondent in his proceedings Semu.No.8838/C.V.-2(2)/2008 dated 03.12.2008 and the consequential order of the third respondent in his proceedings Semu.No.A1/67/004/2007 dated 09.11.2007 to quash the same and to further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was after being sponsored through District Employment Office and after being personally interviewed appointed as Salesman by the third respondent / District Manager, TASMAC Limited. While he was working in Shop No.163, the third respondent inspected the shop on 11.10.2006, in the course of inspection, he found the bottles lying unsealed and damaged and liquor mixed with water and sold out. THE third respondent called for explanation from the petitioner, other salesman and sales supervisor about the damaged and unsealed bottles. THE petitioner and others were also according to the petitioner under compulsion and threat of termination of their services forced to sign on paper stating that those bottles were mixed with water. All happened on the same day 11.10.2006. One year thereafter on 07.11.2007, the third respondent called them for oral enquiry and in the course of which, the third respondent framed charges against the petitioner and other salesman and sales supervisor and conducted the enquiry by himself and passed the order of termination on 09.11.2007. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 27.08.2008 to the second respondent/ the General Manager, TASMAC. THE appeal was in pursuance of the direction issued by the High Court in W.P. No.23383 of 2008 disposed of and rejected. THE present writ petition is filed challenging the correctness of the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3, for the relief as stated supra.

(3.) HEARD the rival submissions made on both sides.