D VEERASEKARAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TASMAC HEAD OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the employees of TASMAC Shop No.9639 coming under Tiruvarur Taluk.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.No.24330 of 2009 was a Shop Supervisor and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24307 of 2009 and 8131 of 2010 were Salesman in the said shop. All the three petitioners were dismissed from service by the order dated 13.02.2009, passed by the District Manager, Tiruvarur, the third respondent herein.

(3.) The charge against the petitioners was that they were responsible for misappropriating a sum of Rs.2,70,707/- from the TASMAC shop. They were also suspended by the third respondent by an order dated 07.03.2008. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioners and the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 16.08.2008 held that the charge levelled against the petitioners was not found proved. After getting the report from the Enquiry Officer, the third respondent herein, without giving any further opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their defence, disagreed with the said enquiry report and held that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners have committed misappropriation to the tune of Rs.2,70,707/-. Therefore, he passed the order of dismissal against the petitioners on 13.02.2009. As against the said dismissal, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Senior Regional Manager, Trichy. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, but however, informed them that they can always make a further revision to the Managing Director. Accordingly, the petitioners preferred further revision petitions before the first respondent - Managing Director of TASMAC and the same was also rejected on 19.10.2009 and 26.12.2009. Neither in the appeal nor in the revision, the authorities considered the flaw in the enquiry that the petitioners were not heard on the dissent note put up by the third respondent - District Manager and it was presumed in both the orders that the enquiry was held properly. There is total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.