MANAGING DIRECTOR, TASMAC Vs. S. SATHISHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellants, aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge, who upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, was pleased to set aside the order of punishment imposed and consequently, allowed the writ petition as prayed for.

(2.) The respondent herein was working as a Salesman with the appellants. Four charges have been framed against him. Of the four charges, according to the Enquiry Officer, two charges were not proved and accordingly, the respondent was exonerated from the said charges and the remaining two charges are pertaining to mixing water with the liquor bottles by reducing the concentration of the liquor content and thereby, reducing the quality.

(3.) The order of the third appellant/disciplinary authority was challenged by the respondent before the second appellant/appellate authority. The second appellant/appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the said order, the respondent herein filed revision before the first appellant/revisional authority. The first appellant/revisional authority has also confirmed the orders passed by the appellants 2 and 3, holding that charges 3 and 4 are accordingly proved.