K R RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the second respondent in his proceedings dated 6. 8. 1993, 27. 8. 1993,30. 8. 1993, 5. 10. 1993, 29. 10. 1993 and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Selection Grade Assistant Manager on time bound scale with effects from 10. 4. 1993 with back wages.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, petitioner would submit that he was working as Branch Manager in Gudiyatham Depot from 1992-1993; that during that period 9 charge memos. were issued by the General Manager and explanations were called for and the same was submitted, but no domestic enquiry was conducted; that the General Manager without giving an opportunity and without conducting enquiry passed an order (1) dated 6. 8. 1993 stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect; (2) dated 27. 8. 1993 stoppage of increment for 3 months without cumulative effect; 3) dated 27. 8. 1993 stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect; (4) dated 27. 8. 1993 stoppage of increment for 12 months without cumulative effect; (5) dated 20. 8. 1993 stoppage of increment for 3 months without cumulative effect; (6) dated 5. 10. 1993 stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect; (7) dated 5. 10. 1993 stoppage of increment for 3 months without cumulative effect; (8) dated 29. 10. 1993 stoppage of increment for 12 months without cumulative effect; (9) dated 28. 11. 1993 stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect; that as per the Corporation Standing Rules 3 (A), the Managing Director is the competent authority for punishing the Assistant Manager Grade Officer; that the General Manager of the Corporation who is not a competent authority had awarded the aforesaid major penalties.

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that he preferred an appeal before the Managing Director against the order passed by General Manager and requested him to cancel the punishment and to promote him as Selection Grade Assistant Manager; that the same was not considered by the second respondent; that he preferred an appeal to the competent authority viz. , the Finance Committee on 1. 6. 1998; that the said Finance Committee rejected his appeal by a non-speaking order, on the ground of limitation without giving opportunity for the petitioner to explain his case and without going into the merits of the case, which is against the principles of natural justice.