M.SAIT Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Inspector in the respondent department and joined the said post on 26.4.89 and is currently functioning as such in the office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruthani, Tiruvallur District. The petitioner was due to attain the age of superannuation on 30.6.13. Whileso, the petitioner was visited with a charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules vide proceedings dated 11.4.11. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the issuance of the charge, the petitioner was not provided with reasonable opportunity nor furnished with the relevant documents to put forth his explanation. The enquiry was proceeded with with affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and the said enquiry was in total violation of the principles of natural justice. Subsequent to the filing of the enquiry report, without furnishing the enquiry report and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why punishment should not be inflicted on him, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide the impugned proceedings dated 20.3.13, aggrieved by which the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the submissions as raised in the grounds in support of his plea, laid emphasis on the impugned order and submitted that the no reason whatsoever has been given in the said order in and by which the punishment was inflicted on the petitioner. He further stressed that a cursory perusal of the order would reveal that the said order has been passed only to victimise the petitioner, as there is not even an iota of reason justifying the said punishment. Therefore, he pleaded for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the present petition.

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, while sought to sustain the impugned order, however, submitted that this Court, in the event of coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the respondents is a non-speaking order, may remand the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration in accordance with law within a particular time frame.