V. GOVINDA RAJASEKARAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to declare the entire domestic enquiry proceedings, dated 7.4.2012 as null and void.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Driver in the respondent Transport Corporation, was involved in an accident while he was driving a vehicle on 13.3.2012. On account of the said accident, the person who met with the accident died. It was stated that the petitioner due to his negligence caused the death of that person. A charge memo, dated 7.4.2012 was framed against him. Subsequently, after conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charges and had filed his report dated 24.10.2012. Thereafter, a memo was given on 02.11.2012 asking the petitioner as to why the department should not accept the enquiry report.

(3.) IT is not clear as to how the charge memo can be challenged at this stage, especially when the petitioner had participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer also found him guilty of charges. The petitioner stated that he only objected to the examination of the additional witness by reopening the enquiry. As to whether a charge memo can be challenged after an enquiry was held, came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in(2006) 12 SCC 28 and in paragraph 18, it was observed as follows :