E. KARTHIKEYAN Vs. TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner further stated that he received a letter dated 28.08.1992, removing him from service. The order stated that since he had sought adjournment for the second time, it was presumed that he had no further objection to the charges levelled against him. The respondent did not supply him with the proceedings of the enquiry that was alleged to have been conducted on 17.08.1992 or any other connected proceedings. He was not provided with the report of the Enquiry Officer and he was put to prejudice on account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report as he could not defend himself effectively by submitting an explanation.

(3.) The petitioner submits that the respondent did not conduct any enquiry before terminating his service. If they had conducted an enquiry, they would have sent the proceedings of the enquiry. At least, they should have given him the report of the Enquiry Officer and asked for his comments. In that event, he would have convinced the first respondent that the report of the Enquiry Officer was biased and one-sided and against the principles of natural justice. The order of removal from service dated 28.08.1992 is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.