C BASKARAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined services in Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation in 1980 as a Mechanic and subsequently he was promoted and presently holding the post of “Tradesman”. The said Transport Corporation has subsequently been abolished and renamed as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 24.11.2001. The order of suspension passed by the General Manager is quoted hereunder in extensio : “ . . . Subject : In the complaint dated 17.6.2001 given to the Management, a complaint has been made against the Security Officer, Transport Corporation alleging that “Mr. Haritheertham, Security Officer, Government Transport Corporation, Dindigul, who stayed in the depot-suite at Kodaikanal alongwith his family members on 16.06.01 in the night, after his return from sight-seeing on 17.06.01 Morning, under the pretext that the M.D. had asked him to conduct an enquiry regarding the untoward incident which took place in Kodaikanal branch on 22.05.01, commenced his enquiry in a threatening manner with each of the employee. He threatened me to withdraw the complaint given by me. Liquor smell was present on his person, at the time of threatening me. Further, he threatened harshly Mr.K. Gajendran, Mechanic and compelled and obtained his signature. Apart from this, the act of the Security Officer, on 22.05.01, in Kodaikanal depot after consuming liquor and having eaten non-vegetarian alongwith the gang which created commotion in a drunken state is painful. When, the Security Officer was questioned regarding your complaint, he submitted an explanation stating that all the allegations made in the letter dated 17.6.01 are baseless, malicious and it is a false and fictitious complaint against truth with a pre-planned and malafide intention and that it is a false complaint stated with a pre-planned intention to create a blemish to his post-Regarding. ----- An order of suspension is passed based on the enquiry, from 24.11.01, as the complaint against you, regarding the incident mentioned in the subject is severe in nature. You are informed that you will be issued a detailed charge-memo regarding this, in due course.”

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioner that the order of suspension has been passed with ulterior motive as the petitioner had made several complaints against various officials of the respondent Corporation. It is also contended that the order of suspension is in violation of the Standing Orders.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, who has passed the order of suspension. The allegations regarding the malafides had been denied.