A RAJARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in all the writ petitions is one and the same person. He was employed as an Assistant Inspector of Labour in the Labour Department. He filed various original applications before the Tribunal seeking to challenge different orders of punishment.

(2.) THE following table will show the OA numbers, corresponding WP numbers and the penalties imposed on the petitioner:-

(3.) THE petitioner filed O. A. No. 5444 of 1999 and obtained an interim stay on 24. 09. 1999. Because of the said order, he continued to work in Tuticorin and during that period, number of charge memos were issued against the petitioner by the said T. Gunapalan. To be precise, there were 8 charge memos under Rule 17(a) and 2 charge memos under Rule 17(b) framed under TNCS (D &A) Rule. In respect of the charge memos framed under Rule 17(a), 5 punishments were imposed on him. When the first charge memo was issued, he requested copies of the document to be furnished. But the second respondent did not furnish those documents and rejected his request. THEreafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli to intervene, but there was no intervention as prayed for by him. THEreafter, he requested the second respondent not to proceed with his memo since he himself was involved in respect of those allegations. But the second respondent imposed a punishment as noted in the above tabular column. In each of the cases, it was the same exercise that was undertaken.