N P VALLUVAN Vs. REGISTRAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to quash the proceedings in Rc. No. A1/519/2008 dated 30.6.2010, of the Registrar, State Consumer Disputes' Redressal Commission, insofar as relates to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has sought for a direction to retain him in the post of Head Clerk in Cuddalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore.

(2.) FACTS leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant by the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, in his proceedings, D. No. 559/94, dated24.6.1994 and posted as Office Assistant in the said Forum, by way of direct recruitment. His services were regularised with effect from1.7.1994 and that his probation was declared as satisfactory on 30.6.1994. He was promoted as a Process server (Junior Bailiff) with effect from 16.8.1999 by the Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chennai (South) and he joined the said post on16.8.1999 AN. His services in the said post were regularised by the Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chennai, respondent herein, with effect from the date of appointment and that he has completed his probation satisfactorily on16.8.2000, as per the proceedings of the respondent in R.C. No. A-1/45/1997(P.S), Gated 16.11.2005.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has failed to consider that the petitioner was working as Head Clerk in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore for the past five years and that he has reached that post after serving at different levels, as stated supra. He further submitted that the reduction in rank by three stages, from the post of Head Clerk to Process Server, i. e., Head Clerk to Assistant, Assistant to Junior Assistant and Junior Assistant to Process Server, has been done without any notice or opportunity to put forth his case, and therefore, the same has to be struck down for violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in P. Mani v. Director General, Central Reserve Police Force (2010) 1 MLJ 747.