P PERIASAMY S/O PONNUSAMY 114 ST JOSEPH NAGAR KONDUR CUDDALORE Vs. GENERAL MANAGER OPERATION TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VILLUPURAM DIVISION-I LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent the main writ petition itself was taken up and arguments heard.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be summarised as follows: THE writ petitioner was working as a Conductor in the respondent Depot at Cuddalore. Alleging misconduct of misappropriation as found by the Auditing Committee, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 21.6.2001. THE charges in main were that: when he was performing duty in route No.310-G service between Cuddalore and Trichy, apart from taking the regular ticket book for that route, he had also taken the ticket books of some other route and also the invoices he had corrected the ticket book and invoice of the other route whenever the Checking Inspector inspected, so that they tallied with the actual collection, which he remitted to the office he had also suppressed the amount collected on the issuance of ticket book relating to such other route and misappropriated the same he also forged the signatures of drivers, who were working with him, as for example, on 9.10.2000 and 19.10.2000 he misappropriated huge sums of money. It was found that the petitioner during the period 1.4.1999 to 30.11.2000 had suppressed and did not bring into account 114 invoices and 36963 tickets. THE value of the amount thus misappropriated by the writ petitioner would come to Rs. 14,23,000/- THE petitioner was charged under clauses 20(4), 34 and 37-A of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation. THE petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within seven days. After a good passage of time, he submitted his reply on 24.7.2001 denying the charges. THE Corporation was not satisfied with the explanation offered and ordered a domestic enquiry. A notice of enquiry dated 6.8.2001 was sent to the petitioner intimating that one Mr.T. Rangarajan, Retired Judge, had been appointed as Enquiry Officer. THE enquiry was to take place on 16.8.2001 at the Villupuram Head Office at 10 a.m. THE petitioner wrote a letter on 11.8.2001 insisting that the enquiry should be held in some depot other than Villupuram Depot and wanted the Enquiry Officer to be changed. THE enquiry was adjourned to 10.9.2001. THE petitioner, instead of attending the domestic enquiry, sent a telegram to the Corporation that he would not attend the enquiry since the Enquiry Officer and the venue of the enquiry had not been changed as per his request. As he had refused to attend the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer setting him ex parte, proceeded with the enquiry. THE Management examined two witnesses on its side. THE Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. THE Corporation concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the misconduct and the loss caused to the Corporation and on a perusal of his past record , the Corporation proposed to remove him from service. THE petitioner was directed to submit his reply to the second show cause notice within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. He took time twice for submitting his reply and without submitting any reply, he moved this Court on 7.11.2001 and obtained an order of status quo.

(3.) IN sum, while setting aside the report on the basis of exparte enquiry and the consequent second show cause notice, I direct a fresh enquiry to be conducted in which the petitioner will participate without any objection and without indulging in delaying tactics. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order in the writ petition. The petitioner shall co-operate as also the Management for completing the enquiry within the stipulated time. No unjustified adjournments shall be allowed by the Enquiry Officer. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. The stay petition in W.M.P.No.31550 of 2001 and the vacate stay petition in M.V.M.P.No.100 of 2002 are closed. There will be no order as to costs.