S KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was employed as an instructor in the second respondent institution. He had put in 23 years of service. As per the service regulations, he is entitled to the salary to be paid on par with Government Orders periodically. While so, on 12. 10. 2001, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent. To that, a reply was given by the petitioner on 13. 10. 2001. THEreafter, no charges were framed and no enquiry was conducted. But suddenly, by an order dated 12. 11.2001, the petitioner was terminated from the service. Challenging that termination, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, which contains a number of violations of the rules committed by the petitioner earlier. But, it is also admitted in the counter affidavit that no enquiry was conducted. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that since the institutions are being managed by Catholic Religious Priests, the petitioner was treated very softly and he was given a lot of opportunities to reform himself and however, because of the adamant behaviour of the petitioner and also the ignorance of the procedure in conducting the domestic enquiry, the impugned order was passed. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the management has got strong documentary evidence in support of the charges and the only defect is the non-conducting of the enquiry.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court, in MANORMA VERMA -vs- STATE OF BIHAR (1994 SUPP [3] SUPREME COURT CASES 671), has categorically held that in service law, once termination is found to be illegal, the consequential order for grant of back wages must follow, unless there are reasons justifying a departure from normal order and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages.