V SHANMUGAM Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the respondent dated 22.3.2000 bearing ref.No.Pers/2000-03/022 imposing a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.

(2.) The petitioner was at the relevant point of time working as the Factory Manager in the Spinning and Weaving Mills of the respondent. He was issued with the charge sheet dated 15.12.1998 along with the imputation of misconduct. The charges related to the period between 9.3.1998 and 27.4.1999 when he was working in Krishnaveni Textiles, Coimbatore. The sum and substance of the charge was that there was breakage in Winding Machine and particularly the breakage was high in Winding Machine No.5 and since he failed to exercise proper control on process parameters, such a high level of breakage in the yarn products occurred. It was therefore, alleged that the petitioner committed the misconduct of neglect of work and negligence in the performance of duty and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation, apart from failure to maintain devotion to duty. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 23.12.1998. Not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner an Enquiry Officer was appointed and in the enquiry, the petitioner was allowed to make his statement and he was also cross-examined at length by the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 15.2.2000 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were conclusively proved. Though the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner was by following the procedure prescribed for the imposition of a major penalty, ultimately by the order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner was imposed with the minor penalty of reduction in lower stage of pay. It was also restored on and after 1.4.2003. It is stated that the petitioner has subsequently gone on voluntary retirement scheme and he is no longer in the service of the respondent.

(3.) Mr.Kamatchi Sundaresan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that there was a serious defect in the conduct of the enquiry in which without relying upon any materials in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner was cross-examined by the Presenting Officer which caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, apart from such a serious defect, in the matter of holding of the enquiry, since the petitioner was not even furnished with the copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer before imposition of the punishment that itself would vitiate the order of punishment. Further according to the learned counsel, the misconduct not having been established fully as against the petitioner, the imposition of punishment was not warranted.