A. BALAN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the orders, dated 14.05.2010 and 04.05.2010, dismissing the petitioners from service, and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them in service with continuity of service with back wages, the petitioners have come forward with the present Writ Petitions.

(2.) THE petitioners herein were working as Salesmen in Sathanur No. 1 Fair Price Shop, under the control of the second respondent. On 07.06.2007, the petitioners were suspended from service and charge memos were issued, on 31.10.2007. The petitioners submitted their explanation, on 09.11.2007 and 31.10.2007. The second respondent conducted enquiry and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, on 21.02.2008. On receipt of report from the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent issued second show cause notice to the petitioners. The second respondent, by proceedings, dated 05.03.2008, imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect and ordered reinstatement in service. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent, suo motu, called for revision of the order of the second respondent, dated 05.03.2008 and issued notices to the petitioners, on 29.04.2010, directing them to appear before the second respondent, on 03.05.2010. The petitioners also submitted their explanation. However, after lapse of two years, the first respondent, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, set aside the order of the second respondent, dated 05.03.2008, and imposed punishment of dismissal from service.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable, in view of the availability of alternative remedy and that the period of ninety days prescribed under section 153 of the Act is not applicable to a suo motu revision. The learned Government Advocate further contended that only after providing opportunity to the petitioners, the orders were passed by the first respondent, and therefore, there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Government Advocate further contended that the petitioners, who were salesmen in the public distribution shop, created bogus ration cards and vouchers as if the goods were sold to the members, and therefore, the punishment awarded is justifiable. The learned Government Advocate also placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Marappan K. Vs The Deputy Registrar of Co -operative Societies, reported in : 2006 (4) CTC 689 and N.P.Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in : 2012 (4) CTC 257 and sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.