S ANANTHARAJ Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the respondent's proceedings made in Ref.No.5677/Estt./96 dated 12.10.2000 and Ref.No.5677/Estt./96 dated 30.04.2002, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits both monetary and service including back wages, promotions,seniority etc.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition is: The petitioner herein was employed in first respondent Cooperative Society, The Nilgiris. During his service, charge memo was issued and charges were framed. Initially enquiry was conducted by an enquiry officer and that was stopped in the middle. Subsequently, another enquiry officer was appointed and after conducting enquiry, he gave his report that charges were not proved. Against that, the disciplinary authority, instead of passing an order, either approving or differing from that finding of the enquiry officer, has appointed an committed, once again to go into the matter on the findings given by the enquiry officer and the committee gave a finding which is different from the enquiry officer's finding. it is stated that in the committee the two persons who were also is sued charges along with the petitioner became members of the committee and that committee gave a finding that the charges were proved. On the basis of the report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the said order by the disciplinary authority, an appeal was filed and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority. Against which the above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the procedure is, the findings given by the enquiry officer has to be acted upon. Instead, constituting a committee consists of the persons, among them two of them were also sued along with the petitioner for the alleged charges framed, and the findings given by the committee, is not legally sustainable. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.