S.RAJAMANICKAM Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as Packer in the respondent Corporation and, thereafter, promoted to the post of Bill Clerk in the year 1987 and subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1988 and posted at the Salem Regional Office and has been working there since then.

(2.) The 3rd respondent issued a charge memo dated 30.8.07 under the provisions of the Corporation Service Rules, 1989 for serious misconduct that there was a shortage/excess of food grains in the godown situated at Seelanaickenpatti Village, Salem District from 5.7.07, which was detected during the inspection by the Head Office on 11.7.07 and 12.7.07. Four other persons, viz., Jagannathan, Quality Inspector, A.Palaniappan and P.Munusamy, Bill Clerks and V.Subbarayan, Watchman were also visited with the said charge memo. However, the enquiry was separately conducted insofar as Jagannathan is concerned, while a common enquiry was conducted against all other employees, including the petitioner. Inspite of repeated requests/representations from the petitioner to peruse the documents, however, the said opportunity was not granted and the petitioner was forced to submit his explanation, which he duly complied with on 20.2.08. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted and the enquiry was proceeded with.

(3.) Inspite of repeated requests even during the enquiry to peruse the documents, the said request was not acceded to and the enquiry officer proceed with the enquiry, which stands vitiated for violation of the rights of the petitioner. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 27.3.08 and inspite of explanation offered by the petitioner to the findings rendered by the enquiry officer, the said explanation was not accepted and the disciplinary authority accepted the findings and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of three months without cumulative effect vide order dated 24.12.09. Further, a sum of Rs.5.032/- was also recovered from the salary of the petitioner towards the value of the alleged shortage of food grains, which act amounts to double punishment.