MANAGEMENT OF TIRUCHENDUR SARVODAYA SANGAM Vs. A NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Judge of this Court made in W. P. No. 5411 of 1988 dated April 27, 1998.

(2.) TIRUCHENDUR Sarvodaya Sangam is the appellant before us and the first respondent, natarajan was an Assistant in the establishment of the appellant. The Secretary of the Sangam transferred the first respondent from tiruchendur to Sathankulam and thereby, the first respondent was also reduced in rank. After the transfer, since the first respondent could not get a suitable accommodation in Sathankulam, he continued to reside in Tiruchendur and at the time of his transfer, it is his case that his wife was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and his children were also studying in school and he was asked to vacate the house by the Secretary. It is the case of the first respondent that the secretary of the appellant Sangam gave a charge sheet dated September 5, 1981 stating that the first respondent assaulted the Secretary of the appellant Sangam on August 28, 1981 at about 8. 30 p. m. and on account of the said charge sheet, the first respondent was placed under suspension. A police complaint was also given. The first respondent gave an explanation on September 7, 1981 and an enquiry was ordered on November 14, 1981. The first respondent did not attend the enquiry on november 14, 1981 and also on the adjourned dates on the ground that his wife was seriously ill and admitted in hospital and the first respondent was set exparte, and in the enquiry, witnesses were examined and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent was removed from service.

(3.) IN the criminal proceedings, the first respondent was acquitted. The first respondent raised an industrial dispute and the Labour court found that there was violation of principles of natural justice and hence, witnesses were examined in the Labour Court and the evidence was taken by the Labour Court and on the basis of evidence, the Labour Court, by award dated December 31, 1986, found that the first respondent was guilty of the charge levelled against him and held that the order of dismissal from service was correct and rejected the claim of the first respondent.