LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-238

GENERAL MANAGER Vs. M MARIMUTHU

Decided On June 28, 2013
GENERAL MANAGER Appellant
V/S
M Marimuthu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.9145 of !001.

(2.) THE Learned Single Judge, while passing the Order dated 30.04.2010 in W.P.No.9145 of 2001 (filed by the Respondent/etitioner) at Paragraph Nos.48 and 49, has inter alia observed that "... But. here is a case where the Petitioner could not make out any case that there was violation of principles of natural Justice or there was failure on the part of the Management to give fair opportunity to the Petitioner to defend the charges levelled as against him. A full Hedged enquiry was conducted in this case. Materials were produced on the side of the Bank with a view to establish the case. The Petitioner was also examined on his side. But, quite unfortunately, the Bank could not establish the charges levelled against the Petitioner with the materials produced before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the question of ordering fresh enquiry in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case does not arise for consideration and as it is found that a perverse finding was rendered by the Respondents, the Court is competent to quash the entire proceedings issued by the Respondents as against the Petitioner" and resultantly. quashed the order of the Appellate Authority (2nd Respondent) in A& R/Con,.'141, dated 08.03.2001 and confirmed by the 1st Respondent (Disciplinary Authority) through order dated 21.10.2000 and further, directed the 1st Respondent to be reinstated in service with 25% of backwages from the date when he was suspended from service, etc.,

(3.) THE Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants urges before this Court that the Respondent/Petitioner has not disputed the truth in his statements recorded in interrogation during investigation and marked as Ex.P.2 and the same was corroborated by the submission of the 26 other documents marked during the domestic inquiry, which would suffice to establish the charges levelled against him.