KANNABIRAN R Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli), first respondent, in TNSC appeal case No. 8 of 1981, dated June 27, 1995, confirming the order of the second respondent removing the petitioner from service, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the second respondent- society and he joined service on September 21, 1972. One Balaraman, sales manager has falsely implicated the petitioner as if he refused to receive the tapal and thus amounting to dereliction of duty. It was also their case that on January 8, 1979, he shouted at the superior officer on being suspended from service. A charge-memo was given on January 21, 1979, for which he replied on January 29, 1979. An enquiry was conducted and ultimately the enquiry officer had submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of all the charges. Before the enquiry officer since the persons concerned with the incident were not examined, he did not cross-examine the witnesses examined on the side of the management except M.W.-2. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, the second respondent dismissed him from service. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent had held that in the absence of cross-examination of M.W.-3 to M.W.-5 the charges were found proved. The entire procedure and the conclusion arrived by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. It is further stated that without discussing the materials placed, the appellate authority merely confirmed the order of the second respondent, hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking me through the charge-memo, the enquiry proceedings and the order of the appellate authority, the first respondent herein, has raised the following contentions: