E SUBRAMANI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the show-cause notices dated 4.10.1996 and 19.11.1996 and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner joined the service of the Pallavan Transport Corporation as driver in the year 1976. He has received a show-cause notice stating that during the training it was found that his vision was not clear and hence why he should not be removed from service. He was asked to submit his explanation within seven days. He submitted his representation requesting the authorities to give 10 days time for submitting the explanation. The petitioner further states that he had been to an Eye Doctor and on testing his eyes, the Doctor has given him a certificate that his vision was alright and he was provided with spectacles. Therefore, according to the petitioner, his condition was normal and he can drive the vehicle. On receipt of the petitioner's explanation another show-cause notice was served on the petitioner on 7.12.1996. The petitioner would submit that the conclusion of the authority to discharging him from service was opposed to the rules and principles of natural justice and no opportunity has been given to him to prove that his vision was alright and that he was able to drive the vehicle. As the respondent had taken decision to discharge the petitioner from service, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the show-cause notices.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that drivers who are involved in an accident are given training in the Driving School and they are also sent for testing their vision. The petitioner was involved in an accident on 10.7.1995 and he was sent for training and after completion of the training his eyes were tested on 26.7.1995. He was referred for complete vision test at the Government Opthalmic Hospital at Chennai and the Director has given his report dated 16.8.1996 stating that the petitioner's eyes were unfit for driving the vehicle. As a result he was unfit for the post of driver and hence he was rightly issued with a show-cause notice. Without awaiting for further orders, the petitioner has approached this Court. The contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him to prove that his vision was alright, was incorrect and false. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to state is case inclusive of the present show-cause notice.